Welfare in the US

[Wonkish1]

It simply does not make sense to spend billions treating every type of cancer for the entire population over 65.  You must pick what kind of cancer it makes sense to treat and you must also pick what stage of cancer is reasonable to treat.

But I guess cancer really is just "synonymous with death".

How you got that from that sentence I will never know.

I'm beginning to see how Sara Palin was so popular with certain people. "Death Panels!!!"

I guess that came from Seatown. I forgot he also made an argument that Cancer treatment was just delayed death as well.

[opebo]

How could 'quality' be relevant for those without access, Wong?

[LastVoter]

You've heard of lung cancer, right?  It's not exactly what you would call a cherry picked rare type of cancer.  Let's look at the numbers...



Esophageal Cancer...



Remeber that vaccine that Perry mandated in Texas.  Yes, the one the lunatic right wing skewered him for.  It helps to prevent esophageal cancer.  So instead of vaccinating the population against this type of cancer we will just wait until they get it and spend six figures in a vain attempt to try and cure them.

All three cancers listed are in the top ten cancers that kill.  Lung cancer is the number one killer.  Still laughing?  It does not make sense to withhold treatment for cancers you can cure or at least get a good 5 year and 10 year survival rate.  Cancer is not a monolithic disease.  It simply does not make sense to spend billions treating every type of cancer for the entire population over 65.  You must pick what kind of cancer it makes sense to treat and you must also pick what stage of cancer is reasonable to treat.

How about Breast Cancer, Testicular Cancer, Brain Cancer, Lymphoma, Liver Cancer, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer the list goes on and on and on.

But I guess cancer really is just "synonymous with death". Tell that to Herman Cain and Rudy Guiliani as just 2 high profile public officials that are cancer survivors.

Link you must be a glutton for punishment.

Use the full quote. It was  "Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death". For example, pancreatic cancer has a 6% 5 year survival rate(wiki).

Here's a nice chart for you

Edit: Cancer treatment is delaying death 90% of the time. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated under Universal Healthcare. 41% of people will get cancer and 21% will die from it. Very small % of people will get expensive to treat cancer.

[Wonkish1]

You've heard of lung cancer, right?  It's not exactly what you would call a cherry picked rare type of cancer.  Let's look at the numbers...



Esophageal Cancer...



Remeber that vaccine that Perry mandated in Texas.  Yes, the one the lunatic right wing skewered him for.  It helps to prevent esophageal cancer.  So instead of vaccinating the population against this type of cancer we will just wait until they get it and spend six figures in a vain attempt to try and cure them.

All three cancers listed are in the top ten cancers that kill.  Lung cancer is the number one killer.  Still laughing?  It does not make sense to withhold treatment for cancers you can cure or at least get a good 5 year and 10 year survival rate.  Cancer is not a monolithic disease.  It simply does not make sense to spend billions treating every type of cancer for the entire population over 65.  You must pick what kind of cancer it makes sense to treat and you must also pick what stage of cancer is reasonable to treat.

How about Breast Cancer, Testicular Cancer, Brain Cancer, Lymphoma, Liver Cancer, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer the list goes on and on and on.

But I guess cancer really is just "synonymous with death". Tell that to Herman Cain and Rudy Guiliani as just 2 high profile public officials that are cancer survivors.

Link you must be a glutton for punishment.

Use the full quote. It was  "Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death". For example, pancreatic cancer has a 6% 5 year survival rate(wiki).

Here's a nice chart for you

Edit: Cancer treatment is delaying death 90% of the time. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated under Universal Healthcare. 41% of people will get cancer and 21% will die from it. Very small % of people will get expensive to treat cancer.

Do you have any clue how much a liver transplant is? Or a kidney transplant? Or how much brain surgery costs?

And no 90% of the time cancer treatment is not delaying death unless you take the "we all die someday approach" in which case its 100%. Today a large percentage of cancer treatments end in remission or removal of the cancer entirely.

[LastVoter]

You've heard of lung cancer, right?  It's not exactly what you would call a cherry picked rare type of cancer.  Let's look at the numbers...



Esophageal Cancer...



Remeber that vaccine that Perry mandated in Texas.  Yes, the one the lunatic right wing skewered him for.  It helps to prevent esophageal cancer.  So instead of vaccinating the population against this type of cancer we will just wait until they get it and spend six figures in a vain attempt to try and cure them.

All three cancers listed are in the top ten cancers that kill.  Lung cancer is the number one killer.  Still laughing?  It does not make sense to withhold treatment for cancers you can cure or at least get a good 5 year and 10 year survival rate.  Cancer is not a monolithic disease.  It simply does not make sense to spend billions treating every type of cancer for the entire population over 65.  You must pick what kind of cancer it makes sense to treat and you must also pick what stage of cancer is reasonable to treat.

How about Breast Cancer, Testicular Cancer, Brain Cancer, Lymphoma, Liver Cancer, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer the list goes on and on and on.

But I guess cancer really is just "synonymous with death". Tell that to Herman Cain and Rudy Guiliani as just 2 high profile public officials that are cancer survivors.

Link you must be a glutton for punishment.

Use the full quote. It was  "Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death". For example, pancreatic cancer has a 6% 5 year survival rate(wiki).

Here's a nice chart for you

Edit: Cancer treatment is delaying death 90% of the time. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated under Universal Healthcare. 41% of people will get cancer and 21% will die from it. Very small % of people will get expensive to treat cancer.

Do you have any clue how much a liver transplant is?

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

[Wonkish1]

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

Yeah, but in National Healthcare systems they don't really. They just constrict the supply to save on the cost.

And practically all cancer treatment is pretty damn expensive. So all, but the cheapest cancers get their treatment slowed down or in some cases cut out all together in National Healthcare systems.

[LastVoter]

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

Yeah, but in National Healthcare systems they don't really. They just constrict the supply to save on the cost.

Is that your best argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
Scroll down to cancer. 9 page thread for a moot point in relation to welfare.
And practically all cancer treatment is pretty damn expensive. So all, but the cheapest cancers get their treatment slowed down or in some cases cut out all together in National Healthcare systems.

[Wonkish1]

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

Yeah, but in National Healthcare systems they don't really. They just constrict the supply to save on the cost.

Is that your best argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
Scroll down to cancer. 9 page thread for a moot point in relation to welfare.
And practically all cancer treatment is pretty damn expensive. So all, but the cheapest cancers get their treatment slowed down or in some cases cut out all together in National Healthcare systems.

What's your point? Even Canada is a much better system than British NHS. But look at the wiki entry you just posted. In diagnostic imaging(which is key to diagnosis) depending on the particular type of diagnostic machine(CT, MRI, etc.) Canada has 1/3 to 1/5 of the quantity per capita as the US has. Don't tell me they don't constrict the supply. In some places the waiting lines just to be tested so that you can be diagnosed are outrageously long.

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

[LastVoter]

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

Yeah, but in National Healthcare systems they don't really. They just constrict the supply to save on the cost.

Is that your best argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
Scroll down to cancer. 9 page thread for a moot point in relation to welfare.
And practically all cancer treatment is pretty damn expensive. So all, but the cheapest cancers get their treatment slowed down or in some cases cut out all together in National Healthcare systems.

What's your point? Even Canada is a much better system than British NHS. But look at the wiki entry you just posted. In diagnostic imaging(which is key to diagnosis) depending on the particular type of diagnostic machine(CT, MRI, etc.) Canada has 1/3 to 1/5 of the quantity per capita as the US has. Don't tell me they don't constrict the supply. In some places the waiting lines just to be tested so that you can be diagnosed are outrageously long.

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

So all of  our supply would magically disappear if we got Universal Healthcare? Just like all of our money supply/market would disappear if we got a welfare state?

[Wonkish1]

So all of  our supply would magically disappear if we got Universal Healthcare? Just like all of our money supply/market would disappear if we got a welfare state?

Where did I say that? If our country transferred the costs of healthcare onto the public balance sheet in this country it would be instant sovereign bankruptcy. Any idiot that looked at the numbers could realize that.

Now if you wanted to slowly take over the US healthcare industry while doing your best not to bankrupt the United States the most likely(of many methods) would be to further constrict payment to hospitals for services rendered to the point that the hospitals losses skyrocket(something that the US government already does to cut costs). Now with a big private market the hospitals today just shift those losses onto privately paid for procedures and their hospital benefactors(this is called healthcare cost shifting). Many hospitals(many of whom are already on the verge of bankruptcy) would be forced into closing. You then get your constriction of supply by having fewer hospitals to go to and the ones remaining are the same size as they are now.

The amount of forced supply constriction/managed care is relative to the amount of out of pocket cost healthcare consumption is. As the out of pocket amount increases the less managed care/supply constriction is needed and vise versa.

So for example if the UK just introduced some pretty reasonable co-pays into their system it would produce cost savings much higher than the exact amount of total co-pays imposed because many people would elect to not have an unneeded treatment given the cost.

[Link]

In diagnostic imaging(which is key to diagnosis) depending on the particular type of diagnostic machine(CT, MRI, etc.) Canada has 1/3 to 1/5 of the quantity per capita as the US has. Don't tell me they don't constrict the supply. In some places the waiting lines just to be tested so that you can be diagnosed are outrageously long.

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

Wonkish has demonstrated quite nicely why I say this garbage about the average "health care consumer" making informed decisions about prices and treatments is pure fantasy.

Ignorance on the far right is rampant.

[Wonkish1]

In diagnostic imaging(which is key to diagnosis) depending on the particular type of diagnostic machine(CT, MRI, etc.) Canada has 1/3 to 1/5 of the quantity per capita as the US has. Don't tell me they don't constrict the supply. In some places the waiting lines just to be tested so that you can be diagnosed are outrageously long.

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

Wonkish has demonstrated quite nicely why I say this garbage about the average "health care consumer" making informed decisions about prices and treatments is pure fantasy.

Ignorance on the far right is rampant.

So did you just type that yourself?

I guess bureaucrats are much better at making decisions when its not even their own lives at stake.

[Link]

In diagnostic imaging(which is key to diagnosis) depending on the particular type of diagnostic machine(CT, MRI, etc.) Canada has 1/3 to 1/5 of the quantity per capita as the US has. Don't tell me they don't constrict the supply. In some places the waiting lines just to be tested so that you can be diagnosed are outrageously long.

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

Wonkish has demonstrated quite nicely why I say this garbage about the average "health care consumer" making informed decisions about prices and treatments is pure fantasy.

Ignorance on the far right is rampant.

So did you just type that yourself?

Mmmm... no.  My name is not Katherine Harmon, I do not work for Scientific America and I did not go back in a time machine and publish that article over a year ago.  Put you mouse over the quote and click.  It will take you to a nice article about your precious US healthcare system and interject a little reality into your right wing world.

And if that is not enough you can check out this article from the New York Times...



By using diagnostic imaging to show how superior the US health system is you chose one of the best examples of how the US health system doesn't work.  The funny thing is anyone who is a "Wonk" and "financial expert" in the field of medicine knows this.  I am not saying this to call you "stupid."  That's what you call other posters on this forum.  I am merely illustrating that your idea about lay people going around making their own financially prudent informed decisions about healthcare is a farce.  Even you who claims to be a "Wonk" and a "financial expert" don't even know or understand the basic problems within our healthcare system.  A health care "free market" full of people like you is a recipe for disaster... which is exactly what we have now.  This thread is full of misstatements, false information, and gross distortions by you.  But it's not a innate problem with you.  These missconceptions are held by a large swath of the public which is why they are incapable of making well informed logical decisions about healthcare on their own.

[Link]

The case for government-run healthcare, apart from the simple equality point, tends to be either assymmetric information or some kind of ideological valuation of peoples' discount rates as being too high.

This is the quote that sums up a lot of this thread.  As has been demostrated the public in general simply does not have enough or proper information.  Econ 101:  You cannot have an efficient market with massively assymetric information.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Consumers of healthcare is the correct term when your referring to it on a macro level(think about it when you buy a drug your not a patient you are a consumer). Its an economics term. When your talking about those that see a doctor or something like that they become "patients". I'm just trying to use accurate lingo here.

'Consumers of healthcare' is never a correct term. It is a robotic term. It is a dangerous and reductive term. It may even be borderline dystopian. If you are ill and need treatment, then you are not acting (and certainly are not thinking) as a consumer, at least not unless you are effectively forced to. And, as has been pointed out already, if you have to act as a consumer, you may well make poor choices. Most people have very little in the way of medical knowledge.

[Link]

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

delay≠death sentence

In nonemergent situations waiting a month or two to see a specialist does not necessarily affect mortality even for certain deadly diseases.  This is certainly not the case for every deadly disease but the notion that everyone with a potentially terminal disease must see a specialist within 1-2 weeks is absurd.  I know a lot of the general American population thinks that but that is because they are ignorant.  True "Wonks" know that this is widely held belief is dumb and wasteful.



I know Republicans are allergic to science but here goes... By the time your Family Practitioner discovers your prostate cancer it's been growing inside you for years.  What's an extra month or two of hanging out with an old friend going to cost you?

Here is something that is true but you will never hear Sara Palin say it...



So now do you think Sara Palin and Fox News have your or America's best interest in mind when they spew their propaganda?

[Link]

You sure about that I have maybe had 2-3 times I actually went to a doctor purely for a physical in my entire life and I'm in my late 20s(yeah I know I'm bad). The primary driver of physicals for your first 30 years of age in the US is actually school sports. I just had my uncle sign off on the paperwork back then. That aside you do kind of get a very, very basic physical every time you show up to the hospital.

You're bad?!  Why?  How many "physicals" is a healthy male in his late twenties supposed to be having, annual, every two years... three years?

Here is the science...



Again I'm not surprised that you don't know the actually benefit or lack there of of physicals for someone in your situation.  The average "health care consumer" as you put it doesn't have a clue about this stuff.  That's why this "market driven" solutions stuff is right wing baloney.

[Gustaf]

I have not had a physical since I moved. I visited a doctor twice in the last 6 years, once when I had to operate some weird lump of fat that emerged under my skin and once after I was punched in the face.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have not had a physical since I moved. I visited a doctor twice in the last 6 years, once when I had to operate some weird lump of fat that emerged under my skin and once after I was punched in the face.

Can I just say that that is so not fair?

[J. J.]

I have not had a physical since I moved. I visited a doctor twice in the last 6 years, once when I had to operate some weird lump of fat that emerged under my skin and once after I was punched in the face.

I have the same weird lump.

[Wonkish1]

Consumers of healthcare is the correct term when your referring to it on a macro level(think about it when you buy a drug your not a patient you are a consumer). Its an economics term. When your talking about those that see a doctor or something like that they become "patients". I'm just trying to use accurate lingo here.

'Consumers of healthcare' is never a correct term. It is a robotic term. It is a dangerous and reductive term. It may even be borderline dystopian. If you are ill and need treatment, then you are not acting (and certainly are not thinking) as a consumer, at least not unless you are effectively forced to. And, as has been pointed out already, if you have to act as a consumer, you may well make poor choices. Most people have very little in the way of medical knowledge.

Your're defining consuming from a marketing stand point. i.e. people that decry consumerism

Consuming in economics is just that you utilize the supply that's it. So even in a national healthcare system the population is consumers of healthcare.

As pointed out before you cannot be a patient of a drug. You can't be a patient of a health coach nor a nutritionist. And since they've been adding exercise into the wide field of healthcare you cannot be a patient of an athletic trainer. Among many other examples.

[Wonkish1]

Mmmm... no.  My name is not Katherine Harmon, I do not work for Scientific America and I did not go back in a time machine and publish that article over a year ago.  Put you mouse over the quote and click.  It will take you to a nice article about your precious US healthcare system and interject a little reality into your right wing world.

By the way, after reading your article its completely meaningless. The reason is that it doesn't address how early detection is which is the most important factor.

A 15% increase in detection from 10 years ago just shows that your maxing out against the amount of new cancer cases that develop each year. When you discover cancer in this year you cannot discover it in the next year obviously. But your also discovering it earlier which is key.

What was happening a decade and a half ago is that they were only recommending diagnostic imaging when it was pretty apparent that you had cancer. The amount of detection would still be high, but it would be across the board late detection(unless you were really lucky).

Now you've seen a small bump in the amount of detection, but detection is being seen in much, much earlier stages allowing for better recoveries than over a decade ago.


Also, since we were talking about Canada not the US keep in mind that the US had more diagnostic at the millennium  than Canada has now.

[Хahar 🤔]

I have not had a physical since I moved. I visited a doctor twice in the last 6 years, once when I had to operate some weird lump of fat that emerged under my skin and once after I was punched in the face.

You saw a doctor when you were punched in the face?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your're defining consuming from a marketing stand point. i.e. people that decry consumerism

Consuming in economics is just that you utilize the supply that's it. So even in a national healthcare system the population is consumers of healthcare.

...

You certainly can reduce everything to such jargonistic abstractions if you really want to, yes. The question is whether this is actually a good idea if you want to be taken seriously by people who disagree with you.

Fundamentally a patient is not a consumer. Fundamentally they are a patient. They may also be (in some respects) a consumer, but only in the way that they are also citizens or perhaps even children of God. Moreover, patients do not make decisions as consumers unless they are forced to, and when they are forced to make decisions as consumers, they will often make poor decisions. Or, to put things slightly differently, it is a mistake to view healthcare as something that is purely (or even mostly) a question of economics.

You will, of course, disagree with every word of that. In any case, it is not merely a question of objecting to the word, as objecting to what it signifies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but your consultant or your GP will presumably prescribe it for you.

Of course I do understand that there is a major cultural difference here. Few things surprise visitors to America nearly so much as the sheer amount of advertising for drugs and other medicinal products.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually know someone who's the patient of a nutritionist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What you are referring to is what kind of system do you use to handle scarcity? Its the first topic of your most basic econ class you'll take. That is a far cry from calling market a rationing mechanism and it wont "do fine just fine" describing that process.

Why won't it do 'just fine' to describe the process? It isn't an ideal word, but I think it gets to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. I suppose you would prefer a prettier euphemism, or perhaps something that celebrates what happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that it isn't. If some people (especially large numbers of people) have almost immediate access to absolutely anything they want in a healthcare system (irrespective of need), then we cannot have equality of access. Someone has to lose out, in some way, at some point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a remarkably specific question for a question that ultimately means very little. I, too, support rainbows, kittens and fluffy bunnies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's meaningless, so it's hard to really disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mostly you just denied the possibility of major difference over such things, and I then I got very bored.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are posting with an air of authority on this topic and you don't know what I'm getting at when I bring up those particular areas? Christ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Economic situation, geographical location, certain lack of the necessary documented medical history for various other reasons, complexity of medical conditions/emergencies.

2. 21

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm well aware of the problems caused by infections in hospitals here, thank you. In fact... at no point did I ever claim otherwise. All I did was point out that it is an issue in every other country, and that what data there is (pretending for a moment that the data is reliable and comparable) points pretty firmly in that direction.

Or, putting things a little differently, it's not a good idea to make facts up here. People sometimes check.

And there we are, perhaps. I think we've reached a dead end, at least as far as this thread goes. Hwyl fawr.