ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Elizabeth Warren , health care reform , Medicare For All , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 12th November 2019, 12:28 PM   #241
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
But with universal coverage the "risk pool" no longer exists: everyone pays in, every medical expense that gets generated gets paid. There is no longer a gamble that this person will get sick and this person won't. We won't be paying to hedge against possible hypothetical medical expenses, we'll just pay for the ones that actually occur.
That's what's at issue. If everyone pays in, not just employers, and union members and other workers who previously had their premiums paid by their employers, the employee who starts paying taxes will be spending more out-of-pocket.

I support universal coverage along the lines of Medicare-for-All, but it's unrealistic to imagine that nobody will end up paying more than they do now.

One intermediate step, as has been proposed by observers across the political spectrum, would be to treat health insurance benefits as taxable income. That would clarify in concrete ways who is paying how much for what.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 12:37 PM   #242
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,281
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's what's at issue. If everyone pays in, not just employers, and union members and other workers who previously had their premiums paid by their employers, the employee who starts paying taxes will be spending more out-of-pocket.

I support universal coverage along the lines of Medicare-for-All, but it's unrealistic to imagine that nobody will end up paying more than they do now.
Long term that could happen if america say goes to similar medical costs as any other developed nation. As a percentage of GDP we spend the same on socialized medicine as other counties now with out medicare and medicaid, we just can't get that to cover everyone for some reason.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 01:33 PM   #243
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,546
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's what's at issue. If everyone pays in, not just employers, and union members and other workers who previously had their premiums paid by their employers, the employee who starts paying taxes will be spending more out-of-pocket.
Well, god forbid people should have to pay to receive a good!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 03:36 PM   #244
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Well, god forbid people should have to pay to receive a good!
That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, if people who don't make much money are going to have to pay for something themselves that has been part of their compensation, that's the same as a pay cut. Not many would be happy about that. And they are faced with losing a system that generally works for them, and trading it for a vague promise.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 04:07 PM   #245
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,107
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's what's at issue. If everyone pays in, not just employers, and union members and other workers who previously had their premiums paid by their employers, the employee who starts paying taxes will be spending more out-of-pocket.

I support universal coverage along the lines of Medicare-for-All, but it's unrealistic to imagine that nobody will end up paying more than they do now.

One intermediate step, as has been proposed by observers across the political spectrum, would be to treat health insurance benefits as taxable income. That would clarify in concrete ways who is paying how much for what.
That is the point. Between me and my employer we together pay for my insurance, and we pay a lot. If my employer pays the same amount as a health care tax instead of fees to an insurance company, my employer is not spending a penny more, and without the profit motive could be spending somewhat less.

If I pay health care taxes instead of my share of the insurance premium, I am not spending more out-of-pocket. If all the co-pay, deductible, in-network vs out-of-network crap goes away, I come out ahead.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 04:10 PM   #246
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
That is the point. Between me and my employer we together pay for my insurance, and we pay a lot. If my employer pays the same amount as a health care tax instead of fees to an insurance company, my employer is not spending a penny more, and without the profit motive could be spending somewhat less.

If I pay health care taxes instead of my share of the insurance premium, I am not spending more out-of-pocket. If all the co-pay, deductible, in-network vs out-of-network crap goes away, I come out ahead.
I just note the presumptions about a plan that doesn't actually exist even on paper, let alone in law. It would be great if we all end up better off. But there's no guarantee, and there are a lot of ways it could go wrong.

Last edited by Bob001; 12th November 2019 at 04:11 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 04:13 PM   #247
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,107
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The thing is that if an American has good group insurance through a corporate or government employer -- as the large majority do -- the system generally works pretty well. It is usually heavily -- sometimes fully -- subsidized, and if you have a problem your benefits office will help you. Medicare also works pretty well for the people who are covered by it.

The problem, of course, is that not everybody has such insurance, and even if you do, you can lose it if you leave your job. But people who benefit from the system as it is are understandably leery of giving up what works in favor of an unknown, uncertain alternative.

That's why a public option -- or as Mayor Pete calls it, "Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It" -- is a more politically palatable proposal. If the public option is better than private coverage, people will choose to migrate to it over time, but there won't be a "Today one way, tomorrow another" transition.
Heavily subsidized by who?
These are costs to the employer, the employee, or both.
If the costs are reduced or even stay the same, and everybody gets covered, who loses? Dimwits that prefer to see "medical withholding" on their pay stub instead of the word "tax"?
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 04:14 PM   #248
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,107
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I just note the presumptions about a plan that doesn't actually exist even on paper, let alone in law. It would be great if we all end up better off. But there's no guarantee, and there are a lot of ways it could go wrong.
What we have now is one of the ways it has gone wrong.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 08:36 PM   #249
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,301
A benefit of UHC is more freedom. People would not be compelled to stay with an employer they don't like just to keep their health insurance. This means that people could quit jobs they hate and even try to be their own employers without needing to worry about health insurance. This additional freedom is why Trumpublicans and big corporations hate the idea.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 04:39 AM   #250
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
One obvious difference is that an employer now pays to insure his employees, who are at least healthy enough to hold full-time jobs. Universal coverage has to include everybody, including people who are too sick to work. That money has to come from somewhere, and it's more likely to come from taxes on everybody, rather than just employers.
It'll be greatly reduced prices for meds from leveraged bulk purchase discounting, like they've had for forever in the other countries. We're currently being totally price gouged unlike anywhere else in the developed world.
Also, the difference in admin costs between medicare and insurance per person really is a lot, so there's lots of savings there, too. We can do price-setting for hospitals, like in France and Germany, as well. Everything about how we do things currently are as lucrative to profiteers and price-gougers as anyone could ever imagine.


Quote:
And insurance companies today are huge purchasers, much bigger than any doctor or hospital. Medicare today is the biggest purchaser of all..
They're not legally allowed to use their purchasing power to get better prices currently. Changing that is part of M4A.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 05:24 AM   #251
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
This Reddit poster is claiming that the insurance co. want their money back for his dad's cancer drugs because they didn't work

I can't bring myself to believe that. Is it viable?


https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCa...ad_in_a_while/
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 05:32 AM   #252
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This Reddit poster is claiming that the insurance co. want their money back for his dad's cancer drugs because they didn't work

I can't bring myself to believe that. Is it viable?


https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCa...ad_in_a_while/
That sounds like a really inaccurate paraphrase of whatever is actually going on there.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 05:38 AM   #253
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
That sounds like a really inaccurate paraphrase of whatever is actually going on there.

My Precis, you mean?

Okay, Not entirely sure how I'm misleading, I'll do it verbatim.

The post reads:


"My Dad's insurance is now demanding hepay back several $1000s for cancer drugs they covered at the beginning of his treatment

Why? Because they didn't work & he had an allergic reaction

They are robbing a cancer patient because his meds didn't work."
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 05:44 AM   #254
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
My Precis, you mean?

Okay, Not entirely sure how I'm misleading, I'll do it verbatim.

The post reads:


"My Dad's insurance is now demanding hepay back several $1000s for cancer drugs they covered at the beginning of his treatment

Why? Because they didn't work & he had an allergic reaction

They are robbing a cancer patient because his meds didn't work."
No, not you!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The kid's tweet posted in the subreddit sounds like an inaccurate paraphrase of whatever crap the insurance company is doing.

Like, I believe the kid that the insurance company is saying they're not responsible for paying the bill, but I doubt they're claiming it's because the meds didn't work, and because there was an allergic reaction.

It sound more like the insurance company is refusing to pay a doctor for some reason, claiming the doctor was incompetent, and the doctor is probably handing the bill to the patient. Something like that.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 13th November 2019 at 05:46 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 05:54 AM   #255
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No, not you!

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem. I really should have worked that out



Quote:
The kid's tweet posted in the subreddit sounds like an inaccurate paraphrase of whatever crap the insurance company is doing.

Like, I believe the kid that the insurance company is saying they're not responsible for paying the bill, but I doubt they're claiming it's because the meds didn't work, and because there was an allergic reaction.

It sound more like the insurance company is refusing to pay a doctor for some reason, claiming the doctor was incompetent, and the doctor is probably handing the bill to the patient. Something like that.

I agree that it's likely not what it's being reported as. You're explanation sounds more likely. My experience with US healthcare providers is that some of them have no shame. They will literally invoice the customer for the remainder after a discount has been negotiated. Presumably in the hope that they'll just pay it.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 09:55 AM   #256
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,256
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
A benefit of UHC is more freedom. People would not be compelled to stay with an employer they don't like just to keep their health insurance. This means that people could quit jobs they hate and even try to be their own employers without needing to worry about health insurance. This additional freedom is why Trumpublicans and big corporations hate the idea.
This is pretty much the core of it. UHC would give workers a ton of leverage and end up driving up wages and lower the profits of major corporations.

There would be overall economic growth because of money going to those that spend it and small business becoming far more viable, but the stock market might slide and for some reason that will be held out as proof that the commie scheme has ruined freedom.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 08:52 PM   #257
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,257
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
A benefit of UHC is more freedom.
Benefit to who? Not employers (who - being the job creators - are the group we should be looking after).

Quote:
People would not be compelled to stay with an employer they don't like just to keep their health insurance. This means that people could quit jobs they hate
Aha! So it's actually a disadvantage!

Quote:
...without needing to worry about health insurance.
Even more of a disadvantage!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 11:30 AM   #258
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,436
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Benefit to who? Not employers (who - being the job creators - are the group we should be looking after).



Aha! So it's actually a disadvantage!



Even more of a disadvantage!
It's an advantage to employees, they don't need to deal.with the hassle of sorting out healthcare packages. It enables smaller businesses to better compete for the employees they want.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 11:33 AM   #259
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,546
I could retire ten years earlier if healthcare were sorted so I don't have to wait for Medicare For Only Elderlies. Thus freeing up my job to be filled by someone younger at a lower salary.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 05:52 AM   #260
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
This is pretty much the core of it. UHC would give workers a ton of leverage and end up driving up wages and lower the profits of major corporations.

There would be overall economic growth because of money going to those that spend it and small business becoming far more viable, but the stock market might slide and for some reason that will be held out as proof that the commie scheme has ruined freedom.
Correct. But:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...ot-the-economy
Quote:
The Washington Post Discovers the Stock Market Is Not the Economy
Written by Dean Baker
Published: 09 January 2018
Quote:
It would be closer to the mark to think of stock prices as being like corn prices. Higher corn prices are great news if you grow a lot of corn. For everyone else, they just mean they will pay more for food.

Similarly, higher stock prices are great for the relatively small share of the population with large stock holdings. For everyone else, the main impact is likely to be higher house prices and rents, as the now richer stockholders bid up prices.
We're just going to have to laugh at them for trying to paint that as "proof that communism doesn't work" or whatever other nonsense they're going to try to say.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 18th November 2019 at 05:54 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 05:57 AM   #261
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I could retire ten years earlier if healthcare were sorted so I don't have to wait for Medicare For Only Elderlies. Thus freeing up my job to be filled by someone younger at a lower salary.
Yeah, they think that's a bad thing. It causes "inflexability in the labor market".

See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTDwCCagqGM
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 07:15 AM   #262
Ron Obvious
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 97
I would imagine it's a great benefit to the employers too, since they no longer have to deal with expensive health insurance anymore. Look at the US car makers moving from Detroit to Canada for example, as they could make cars cheaper there. The figure I remember, which is probably way out of date, is that health insurance added $1,000 to the price of every American-made car.
Ron Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 07:40 AM   #263
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,413
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
I would imagine it's a great benefit to the employers too, since they no longer have to deal with expensive health insurance anymore.


And also the benefit of not having to harass your own employees over their health issues, because they're "costing our insurance too much money". I recently spent a few days in the hospital, and literally the only thing my boss had to worry about with regards to this was if I had enough sick leave. He didn't need or want to hear about anything else.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 09:58 AM   #264
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,256
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And also the benefit of not having to harass your own employees over their health issues, because they're "costing our insurance too much money". I recently spent a few days in the hospital, and literally the only thing my boss had to worry about with regards to this was if I had enough sick leave. He didn't need or want to hear about anything else.
Yeah. We are becoming a nation of weird sociopaths.

A four year old here was mauled by a pit bull a few months ago. Had to be helicoptered to a larger city, multiple surgeries, etc. It is a small area so I had a few different people tell me about it.

I think the most anyone got before remarking on how it was going to financially destroy the child's family was like three sentences.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 10:11 AM   #265
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,156
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Yeah. We are becoming a nation of weird sociopaths.

A four year old here was mauled by a pit bull a few months ago. Had to be helicoptered to a larger city, multiple surgeries, etc. It is a small area so I had a few different people tell me about it.
Why would the pit bull need multiple surgeries?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 10:46 AM   #266
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,256
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Why would the pit bull need multiple surgeries?
I live in a really tough neighborhood.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 11:40 AM   #267
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,405
A picture of health care in the U.S. today: Your ER doc might be 1,000 miles away.
Quote:
As hospitals and physicians continue to disappear from rural America at record rates, here is the latest attempt to fill a widening void: a telemedicine center that provides remote emergency care for 179 hospitals across 30 states. Physicians for Avera eCare work out of high-tech cubicles instead of exam rooms. They wear scrubs to look the part of traditional doctors on camera, even though they never directly see or touch their patients. They respond to more than 15,000 emergencies each year by using remote-controlled cameras and computer screens at what has become rural America’s busiest emergency room, which is in fact a virtual ER located in a suburban industrial park.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...39d_story.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 03:26 PM   #268
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,156
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
A picture of health care in the U.S. today: Your ER doc might be 1,000 miles away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...39d_story.html

(article about doctors serving emergency rooms remotely.)
Keep in mind that such 'outsourcing' has gone on in other areas of health services, and even occurs in other countries.

(For example, Canada and the U.S. have been 'outsourcing' the work of radiologists to India... get your X-ray done locally, it gets emailed to some doctor in India, and they send the results back.)

Not sure if that's necessarily due to the U.S. relying on private health care, or just the result of having parts of the country with very low population density.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 03:39 PM   #269
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Keep in mind that such 'outsourcing' has gone on in other areas of health services, and even occurs in other countries.

(For example, Canada and the U.S. have been 'outsourcing' the work of radiologists to India... get your X-ray done locally, it gets emailed to some doctor in India, and they send the results back.)

Not sure if that's necessarily due to the U.S. relying on private health care, or just the result of having parts of the country with very low population density.
Telemedicine isn't necessarily a bad thing. These rural areas couldn't support a full emergency department, and without the new technology those severely sick or injured patients would likely be packed into ambulances and transported long distrances across the countryside. If I was dying after a car accident I'd take a tele-doctor over no doctor.

But outsourcing xrays etc. is purely cost-driven. I'm sure it could be done in the U.S. The question for patients is how reliable are the results of overseas outsourcing vs. using a U.S. specialist? Has that been studied? And do the patients benefit from the reduced costs, or does it just allow the hospital to pocket more of the fee?

Last edited by Bob001; 18th November 2019 at 03:40 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 03:51 PM   #270
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,256
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And do the patients benefit from the reduced costs, or does it just allow the hospital to pocket more of the fee?
The $52 trillion dollar question in a nutshell.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 03:26 AM   #271
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,673
Quote:
Under Ms. Warren’s Social Security plan, and not incorporating any other changes to the tax code, a family with one wage earner making $300,000 a year, for example, would pay an extra $7,400 in tax each year. For each additional dollar earned over that level, total federal tax obligations would rise to 39 cents, up from 27 cents today. (Those numbers include both taxes deducted from workers’ paychecks and those paid by employers, which economists believe are ultimately borne by workers.)

“This is a much bigger deal for more households than the wealth tax,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, which analyzed Ms. Warren’s proposal at her campaign’s request. “The wealth tax is a mind shift, opening up a new source of revenue. In terms of the number of people impacted, this is much bigger.”

For those making millions of dollars and living in a high-tax location like New York City, the combined marginal tax rate — including federal income tax, Medicare and Social Security tax, and state and local income tax — would be about 63 percent. Sweden currently has the highest top overall marginal tax rate among rich nations, at 60.1 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/u...nt-warren.html

Gosh, maybe it's time for Americans to actually pay their bills?
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 03:59 AM   #272
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And do the patients benefit from the reduced costs, or does it just allow the hospital to pocket more of the fee?
I'm sure it'll depend on the hospital. Hospitals tend to extract as much wealth as possible for themselves, though.

There's a reason it's the hospital association doing this:

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/15/...ospital-tenet/

Quote:
DOCUMENTS REVEAL HOSPITAL INDUSTRY IS LEADING FIGHT AGAINST MEDICARE FOR ALL
Quote:
INVESTOR-OWNED HOSPITALS are leading the fight against the creation of a comprehensive, universal health care system, according to corporate filings reviewed by MapLight and The Intercept.

Tenet Healthcare, the nation’s third-largest investor-owned operator of hospitals, has donated nearly $630,000 to the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, or PAHCF, a dark-money organization created last year to erode public support for Medicare for All, a government-run plan that would provide health care for all Americans.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.