The Club takes on Healthcare - Free Market Style
Comments
-
Or, really, all things mortality.1to392831weretaken said:
You can trust them when it comes to baby killing.RaceBannon said:The CIA is your source?
-
I'm watching the Crown on Netflix. I get most of my information from Netlfix and pedantically pass it off as my own knowledge.hardhat said:
I think it's best to separate the quality of care vs how we pay for it. I don't think anyone would argue that most hospitals deliver quality outcomes. I don't think it's a secret that when a wealthy person from another country on one of those charts needs emergency heart surgery that they come to the USA for it. There's obviously a problem when someone goes bankrupt due to medical bills though.1to392831weretaken said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4rg-DJBd34
I think it's difficult to discuss this because so many people refuse to even entertain the idea that the U.S. healthcare system isn't the gold standard in the world. All they hear is how we get the best care in the world, so changing the system would result in a lower standard of care. I don't understand how anybody could look at the data and come to that conclusion, though:
/>
Anyway, Churchill's Foreign Sec'y, Anthony Eden, is in the US meeting with someone, and he's having severe pancreas issues and needs surgery. Wants to do it in Boston because it's the best place in the word for that surgery. But not because of capitalism. He says to Churchill, he says, "because of the high fat diet in the US"; so we're good at fixing things caused by being like @CFetters_Nacho_Lover and @CfettersNachoLover . According to the pasty Brits.
So, I wonder, but don't necessarily know or believe, if we're good at some things and other countries are good at other things. Are we good at some medical technology because of the nature of our demographics and not because of the system? IDK. Maybe it doesn't matter.
Anyway, thought I'd throw some causation analysis in for fun. -
No time to post detailed thoughts...learned a lot about health care way back when when I went with my friend who had just moved to Holland to go buy Health Care. Was a lot like shopping for home/auto insurance...he bought a Cadillac plan that even covered taxi rides to the hospital.creepycoug said:
Not sure @MikeSeaver would respeck this post. That is, if he cared, and he doesn't btw.RaceBannon said:Not touching
@HoustonHusky and the other economis bros will jump in. I'm sure of it!
Where da fuck is @UW_Doog_Bot anyway? @DerekJohnson said he'd be along momentarily. That was 3 mos. ago.
Dirty secret over there is that there is a 2-tier system...there is a base (pretty crappy) care everyone gets and then there is a private/premium option which is much better and all the affluent folks buy into. And with that he still has flown over to the US a few times and paid cash for things he and his kids have needed...even the premium care had its limitations. A good example for the "premium" health car in Holland is that he had to argue tooth and nail for them to give his wife an epidural when they were having their 2nd kid as the hospital didn't do that because of cost. Always like bringing that example up when a mom tells me how much better health care is over in Europe.
A version of that is probably a better system, but don't think it would/could ever happen as no one would accept the baseline govt coverage and all of its limitations.
FDR really screwed up when he tied health care to work (part of wage controls way back when)...messed with a lot of things but not sure how it will get undone without a big crash/financial reset.
-
Unfortunately none of that deals with the cost of the actual drugs, which is a huge driver in increased costs. One easy, quick solution to that: state that we will pay no more than the average cost of a drug across a basket of similar countries: let's say Canada, the UK and Germany. If you want to charge more for the drug than the average cost across those countries, you can do so but you lose your patent exclusivity. We currently subsidize the rest of the world by paying outrageously high prices compared to similar economies to the point that states are now looking at importing drugs from Canada that were manufactured in the US in the first place.
There's a lot of other waste in the pharmacy/PBM/drug space that could be fixed, but the above is the lowest hanging of fruit. -
SolidBuffBuffPass said:Unfortunately none of that deals with the cost of the actual drugs, which is a huge driver in increased costs. One easy, quick solution to that: state that we will pay no more than the average cost of a drug across a basket of similar countries: let's say Canada, the UK and Germany. If you want to charge more for the drug than the average cost across those countries, you can do so but you lose your patent exclusivity. We currently subsidize the rest of the world by paying outrageously high prices compared to similar economies to the point that states are now looking at importing drugs from Canada that were manufactured in the US in the first place.
There's a lot of other waste in the pharmacy/PBM/drug space that could be fixed, but the above is the lowest hanging of fruit. -
Interesting point. I chortled at a brit mocking any other country for their diet. In the UK, I also think mr. pancreatitis would have had to wait his turn for his procedure. Or maybe if he was a bigwig he could have jumped the line.creepycoug said:
I'm watching the Crown on Netflix. I get most of my information from Netlfix and pendantically pass it off as my own knowledge.hardhat said:
I think it's best to separate the quality of care vs how we pay for it. I don't think anyone would argue that most hospitals deliver quality outcomes. I don't think it's a secret that when a wealthy person from another country on one of those charts needs emergency heart surgery that they come to the USA for it. There's obviously a problem when someone goes bankrupt due to medical bills though.1to392831weretaken said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4rg-DJBd34
I think it's difficult to discuss this because so many people refuse to even entertain the idea that the U.S. healthcare system isn't the gold standard in the world. All they hear is how we get the best care in the world, so changing the system would result in a lower standard of care. I don't understand how anybody could look at the data and come to that conclusion, though:
/>
Anyway, Churchill's Foreign Sec'y, Anthony Eden, is in the US meeting with someone, and he's having severe pancreas issues and needs surgery. Wants to do it in Boston because it's the best place in the word for that surgery. But not because of capitalism. He says to Churchill, he says, "because of the high fat diet in the US"; so we're good at fixing things caused by being like @CFetters_Nacho_Lover and @CfettersNachoLover . According to the pasty Brits.
So, I wonder, but don't necessarily know or believe, if we're good at some things and other countries are good at other things. Are we good at some medical technology because of the nature of our demographics and not because of the system? IDK. Maybe it doesn't matter.
Anyway, thought I'd throw some causation analysis in for fun. -
My wife and I went to London in 1989 and I almost starved to death. McDonalds and Pizza Hut saved me. #merica
-
RaceBannon said:
My wife and I went to London in 1989 and I almost starved to death. McDonalds and Pizza Hut saved me. #merica
-
I was going to mention this but you beat me to the punch.BuffBuffPass said:Unfortunately none of that deals with the cost of the actual drugs, which is a huge driver in increased costs. One easy, quick solution to that: state that we will pay no more than the average cost of a drug across a basket of similar countries: let's say Canada, the UK and Germany. If you want to charge more for the drug than the average cost across those countries, you can do so but you lose your patent exclusivity. We currently subsidize the rest of the world by paying outrageously high prices compared to similar economies to the point that states are now looking at importing drugs from Canada that were manufactured in the US in the first place.
There's a lot of other waste in the pharmacy/PBM/drug space that could be fixed, but the above is the lowest hanging of fruit.
I am going to skirt dangerously to Tug talk here, but the fact that the US is not only footing the in pharma but in things like biomedical devices is definitely problematic. We might not have the best standard of care, but we’re still the best in scientific/medical research. That research ain’t cheap and the cost has to be passed on to somebody.
That’s why when people start comparing the US healthcare system to other countries, I get a little upset. There are some very unique problems that the US has to deal with that other countries do not. It’s fine to look to these places for ideas, but trying to replicate Canada or anyone else probably won’t work. -
I don't know about the fat content, which I'd guess is just as bad; but the fucking taste and the things they eat ... JFC those people can't cook.hardhat said:
Interesting point. I chortled at a brit mocking any other country for their diet. In the UK, I also think mr. pancreatitis would have had to wait his turn for his procedure. Or maybe if he was a bigwig he could have jumped the line.creepycoug said:
I'm watching the Crown on Netflix. I get most of my information from Netlfix and pendantically pass it off as my own knowledge.hardhat said:
I think it's best to separate the quality of care vs how we pay for it. I don't think anyone would argue that most hospitals deliver quality outcomes. I don't think it's a secret that when a wealthy person from another country on one of those charts needs emergency heart surgery that they come to the USA for it. There's obviously a problem when someone goes bankrupt due to medical bills though.1to392831weretaken said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4rg-DJBd34
I think it's difficult to discuss this because so many people refuse to even entertain the idea that the U.S. healthcare system isn't the gold standard in the world. All they hear is how we get the best care in the world, so changing the system would result in a lower standard of care. I don't understand how anybody could look at the data and come to that conclusion, though:
/>
Anyway, Churchill's Foreign Sec'y, Anthony Eden, is in the US meeting with someone, and he's having severe pancreas issues and needs surgery. Wants to do it in Boston because it's the best place in the word for that surgery. But not because of capitalism. He says to Churchill, he says, "because of the high fat diet in the US"; so we're good at fixing things caused by being like @CFetters_Nacho_Lover and @CfettersNachoLover . According to the pasty Brits.
So, I wonder, but don't necessarily know or believe, if we're good at some things and other countries are good at other things. Are we good at some medical technology because of the nature of our demographics and not because of the system? IDK. Maybe it doesn't matter.
Anyway, thought I'd throw some causation analysis in for fun.
The royal family apparently eschews garlic. Literally forbidden in the Buckingham palace kitchen. Hey Britty, try it sometime. It might make your disgusting food taste a bit better.
Anyway, I digress.
