Politics Thread

[paulxu]

Is that really true? The older people were already covered by Medicare.
The actual enrollment numbers show very few people over 65 signed up.
5 million over 54, but 15 million under 54.

https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-...2:%22asc%22%7D

[Strange Brew]

Single payer does NOT equal government run health plan (only in Great Britain)
The European and other models that perform so much better than ours at less cost, are non-profits for the most part.
They just remove the overhead of insurance companies, standardize administration, don't need PBM's and cover everybody.

You may not like the ACA, but there are millions of Americans who now have some form of insurance that didn't have it before.

I disagree on the performance of the Euro models.


Are you saying their “non-profit” systems operate at a loss?

[paulxu]

I disagree on the performance of the Euro models.


Are you saying their “non-profit” systems operate at a loss?

No, I'm not saying they operate at a loss. They just don't generate profits for middle men like insurance companies and PBM's.
There are some good metrics from organizations that have tracked performance for decades on this subject. Here are a couple to look at;

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...or-mirror-2024

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...are-countries/

[Strange Brew]

No, I'm not saying they operate at a loss. They just don't generate profits for middle men like insurance companies and PBM's.
There are some good metrics from organizations that have tracked performance for decades on this subject. Here are a couple to look at;

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...or-mirror-2024

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...are-countries/

So they are for profit and I’m sure there are plenty of layers of gov’t waste that are paid throughout the system.

I’m not sure I trust those that promoted and passed the ACA with fixing anything for a long time.


And for anyone interested. The Commonwealth Fund is Progressive Left outfit. Their mission statement makes that very clear.

[paulxu]

It would be nice to have a reasonable discussion.
What’s the point if one doesn’t understand nonprofit means nonprofit?
What’s the point if you’re worried about the gatherer of facts, instead of the facts?
An infant mortality rate is just that, regardless of who published it.
Sorry. I tried. I’ll learn someday.

[Strange Brew]

It would be nice to have a reasonable discussion.
What’s the point if one doesn’t understand nonprofit means nonprofit?
What’s the point if you’re worried about the gatherer of facts, instead of the facts?
An infant mortality rate is just that, regardless of who published it.
Sorry. I tried. I’ll learn someday.

I brought up “profit” because you seem to insinuate that the “non-profit” works better. They operate on a “profit”.

The source matters as we’ve all found out the past number of years. The source has an agenda and uses the”facts” to prove its agenda. Kind of like the recent crime “facts” from the Fed Gov’t.

What do you want to discuss? A National Healthcare System?

[bjf123]

I brought up “profit” because you seem to insinuate that the “non-profit” works better. They operate on a “profit”.

In theory, a health care system operated by nonprofit entities should reduce costs since they don’t have to worry about maximizing shareholder wealth. In theory.

I was at a seminar years ago where the presenter was involved in negotiating rates between hospitals and insurance companies. He explained why there can be such disparities between hospitals for the same service. If a hospital recently built a new magnetic imaging center, they need to show their board that the money spent is generating a good return, so they won’t discount those services too much. However, that same hospital might have a cardiac care center that was essentially paid for years ago, so they’ll give big discounts there, resulting in an “acceptable” overall discount to both the hospital and the insurance companies. Another hospital with a new cardiac care center and an older MRI center will negotiate the opposite way, resulting in big price differences for the same service, depending on the facility. Never thought about it that way before that seminar, but it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

The source matters as we’ve all found out the past number of years. The source has an agenda and uses the”facts” to prove its agenda. Kind of like the recent crime “facts” from the Fed Gov’t.

This is why it's useless. You'll find a reason to ignore the facts, and attack the messenger.
I noted infant mortality is much larger here as an example.
Here's another source on the subject. Does it somehow make the statistics magically correct, that people spent decades studying and gathering data?

https://www.foxnews.com/health/us-ra...fant-mortality

No worries; I'll bow out. Metrics clearly show the US health system costs more and delivers less than single payer/universal coverage plans in most of the developed world.
To refuse to understand that and try for improvement, will only help those who take profit out of providing health care.
The other countries decided it's not a service where profit should be made; rather a social service like the police or fire.
I suppose it would be nice to say all our money (roughly twice as much) delivered better care for EVERYONE. But that's not the case.
We seem to be the only country where anyone is burdened with "medical" debt. Not something to be proud of.

[XU_Lou]

This is why it's useless. You'll find a reason to ignore the facts, and attack the messenger.
I noted infant mortality is much larger here as an example.
Here's another source on the subject. Does it somehow make the statistics magically correct, that people spent decades studying and gathering data?

https://www.foxnews.com/health/us-ra...fant-mortality

No worries; I'll bow out. Metrics clearly show the US health system costs more and delivers less than single payer/universal coverage plans in most of the developed world.
To refuse to understand that and try for improvement, will only help those who take profit out of providing health care.
The other countries decided it's not a service where profit should be made; rather a social service like the police or fire.
I suppose it would be nice to say all our money (roughly twice as much) delivered better care for EVERYONE. But that's not the case.
We seem to be the only country where anyone is burdened with "medical" debt. Not something to be proud of.

You're basing your decision on one metric? No wonder LA is in flames....

[Strange Brew]

This is why it's useless. You'll find a reason to ignore the facts, and attack the messenger.
I noted infant mortality is much larger here as an example.
Here's another source on the subject. Does it somehow make the statistics magically correct, that people spent decades studying and gathering data?

https://www.foxnews.com/health/us-ra...fant-mortality

No worries; I'll bow out. Metrics clearly show the US health system costs more and delivers less than single payer/universal coverage plans in most of the developed world.
To refuse to understand that and try for improvement, will only help those who take profit out of providing health care.
The other countries decided it's not a service where profit should be made; rather a social service like the police or fire.
I suppose it would be nice to say all our money (roughly twice as much) delivered better care for EVERYONE. But that's not the case.
We seem to be the only country where anyone is burdened with "medical" debt. Not something to be proud of.

Paul, I read the article and so should you. Our Pre-term mortality rates are very good. The reason for the higher full-term mortality rate was listed as unknown and the article speculated on causes that do not have to do with “healthcare”.

And it’s one metric. And your article doesn’t really prove what you think it does.