Talk politics.

The problem is that people aren't looking at government run health care in the U.S. and saying "I want more of that".

They are looking at government run health care in the rest of the world and saying "I want that".

From:

A small minority, yes (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2009/34_favor_single_payer_health_care_system).

From:

34% of voters nationwide polled I personally wouldn't call a "small" minority. A minority yes, but it's quite a substantial one, especially as those who didn't prefer a single-payer system was only 52% (14% were undecided).

Of that 52% who didn't prefer a single-payer system, I have to wonder how many actually DO want a health care system that works like other countries have, but don't understand what that entails?

It's a safe bet that a quite large proportion of Americans don't have any clue what sort of health care payer system other countries actually use.

From:

I'd say a lot of people want a single payer without understanding the negative consequences thereof, to be honest.

From:

And I think a lot of them can read newspapers (e.g. about how the Austrian health care system is considered the best in the world) and read a simple graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_care_cost_rise.svg

I'm not suggesting it is the best system ever possible or that ANY system won't have possible negatives, but it sure beats the hell out of what you've already got.

From:

I can't agree, especially if the #1 argument you can bring out is cost.

From:

I don't follow. Care to elaborate?

From:

I'm not sure I want to dive into a health care debate of that magnitude right now, but the short answer is that single payer won't do a thing for costs when cost drivers have nothing to do with how we pay for care (http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx). So much of our costs are tied up in what the market-esque system provides in unique, on-demand care and innovative procedures that shifting the cost solely on the taxpayer doesn't address why costs rise at a higher rate here.

It's also why I'm so concerned about the reforms put in place last year. We're talking about taking a system overburdened by rules and regs and distorted by the interference of the government and adding more to it.

From:

Even assuming that nothing about delivering health care changed, single payer would eliminate profit, advertising, and much of the overhead from the cost of health care. That knocks off at least 10-20%.

Then, of course, we get into efficiencies of scale, people getting treated preventively for cheaper, etc.

From:

Profit margins are so low, it's almost a nonstarter. We know insurers only hit about 3.5% margins (http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html) on a good year, so you're not going to find many savings in so many nonprofit hospitals and such, either. There's a lot of money in medicine, but not necessarily profit.

The overhead is the same issue. That public overhead is able to be masked by other depaartments (more here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/27/the_adminstrative_cost_benefit_myth_97193.html)) doesn't really help. Even if we were generous and said that we could reduce costs by 5% by eliminating said overhead, the costs of other systems don't scale to our population.

From:

Yes, but profit margins are not the only thing I listed. Advertising, higher executive pay, those junkets mentioned - none of that counts toward profits.

I'll have to look more into Book's numbers on all that, because they don't square with some other studies. (http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/The-Federal-Employees-Health-Benefits-Program-Program-Design-Recent-Performance-and-Implications-for-Medicare-Reform-Report.pdf#page=8) But really, depending on a study from the Heritage Foundation?

From:

Yes, but profit margins are not the only thing I listed. Advertising, higher executive pay, those junkets mentioned - none of that counts toward profits

Advertising is something I thought I linked, but I missed it. Again, though, a drop in the bucket - we're talking about a mutli-trillion dollar industry. Knocking $200m off that number is not going to impact pricing.

I'll have to look more into Book's numbers on all that, because they don't square with some other studies. But really, depending on a study from the Heritage Foundation?

I do recommend taking a look at the Heritage study. I usually refrain from offering up think tank analyses, but this one was pretty sound.

(deleted comment)

From:

Well I feel like I am explaining the obvious here, but it's because everyone (quite reasonably) thinks their own opinion is right, of course. Otherwise they probably wouldn't hold that opinion.

Therefore if other people hold the same opinion as oneself, it logically follows that whether they got there logically or not, they also hold the correct opinion. And if they disagree, they either they have reasoned incorrectly, or are just plain wrong.

Easy.

From:

I mean, I understand the point you are making and the problem, but unless one starts out doubting the validity of their own firm opinions or refuses to hold a firm opinion altogether (a terrible idea), then this is unfortunately a perfectly reasonable chain of reasoning.

Being as intelligent as you are, I'm sure you will agree with me :)

(deleted comment)

From:

Well I agree we need to ready to doubt any preconceived notion we have, but walking around with that as the default position makes it extremely difficult to get anything done.

From:

Oh, I think lots of people agree with me for stupid reasons. That might just be me, though.

From:

Perhaps we should see if there are any polls with questions like "Given the standards of health care provided in country X, compared to current standards in the U.S. would you prefer to use their system or system Y?"

From:

Perhaps, but that's pretty leading, especially given the irresponsible media reporting on our health care.

From:

Given comparative facts about Country X and about the U.S. how would that be leading?

From:

Chances are the facts wouldn't really be comparative, nor have Americans been given even an inkling of the proper context or even the positive qualities of our current system.

From:

Do you disagree that the average person in many countries around the world receives better healthcare and it costs significantly less, than for an average U.S. citizen?

From:

Costs less, sure. Those numbers seem pretty solid. Better care, though? No, I can't get on board with that at all.

From:

jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com

If by costs less you mean out of pocket, yes, but then take into consideration the much higher taxes paid in those countries and the lack of any new health care procedures and drugs, then the costs are not less. And the healthcare received in those countries is not better, if anything it's about the same or worse than US healthcare.

From:

Err...no, the total cost in most countries for health care is significantly less as a proportion of GDP.

That means that the tax rate individuals pay towards health care is less than in the U.S.

And I really don't know what you mean by lack of any new health care procedures and drugs? You may not realise, but the U.S. while being notable due to its large economy and correspondingly large pharma/medical industry is not the only place on Earth that regularly invents or innovates in the areas of new medicine or drugs.

From:

jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com

You may not realize that in those countries where the government provides health care, many people also have to carry private insurance in order to get quality healthcare. Also, just as healthcare standards are measured differently in each country, so are costs. So I'll stand by what I said.

And I know that other countries do have their minimal input to the global advance of healthcare, but the US has the overwhelming majority of medical advances in drugs and procedures.

From:

By no measure is anything you said true. To compare costs, total health care spending is tabulated, both public and private, and the U.S. still has far higher costs than everyone else (usually around double). And no comprehensive ranking of health care systems has the U.S. near the top.

From:

Given the nebulous nature of the metric "better healthcare", yes, I disagree.

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

Perhaps you shouldn't listen to what uninformed non-experts think and just implement the systems that are working elsewhere. It's such a pity that you guys have an authoritarian right and a pissweak left. It means the only change that ever happens are the ones the right forces down your throats.

From:

Err...watch out who you're calling a yank mate.

From:

jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com

I didn't realize that the right forced obamacare, ARRA, cash for clunkers, ... down our throats.

From:

But they won't get it, they'll get Medicare on steroids. Or worse, the VA system.

(deleted comment)

From:

rasilio.livejournal.com

ROTFL

Yeah Right

Late last year the VA lost my father for about 2 weeks.

Literally they lost him, he was rushed to the hospital with some kind of brain infection and for 2 weeks they couldn't tell my mother where he was, they didn't know which hospital he had been transferred to, or even why he was transferred when he was clearly not medically stabilized yet. During this time the doctors treating him had no clue what medications he was currently on, or that he was a diabetic or that he had COPD and they were just treating him as if he had dementia (last I checked advanced dementia didn't set in over the course of about 8 hours but hey I'm not a VA doctor) and he lost about 40 lbs during that 2 weeks.

Needless to say they nearly killed him and had my mother not finally been able to find him and consult with his doctors he would have died.

From:

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com

I'm pretty sure he was being Ironic.

Then again there has been a recent influx of young and buerocratically savvy applicants who won't hesitate to to put them on blast when they mess up.

From:

The VA actually does pretty well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration#Evaluation)

From:

There has been some improvement lately, yes, but I'm not convinced by those self-reported stats.

From:

I don't think they were self-reported.

What statistics are you basing your claim on?

From:

The VA said that the VA improved. That's self-reported.

From: