I knew US healthcare reform would fail 2-3 years ago.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

American healthcare reform is a disgusting topic for me. It symbolizes everything wrong with America and the world in general. If I could compartmentalize everything about US healthcare reform within a handheld package, I'd consider it a heroic act worthy of Leonidas for an astronaut to evacuate it from an airlock sending it sailing into the nearest sun. Immolation by fire is the only logical response to healthcare reform and socialism in general. It always has been. America has only forgotten.

This summarizes my stance on US healthcare reform as early as 2008 and 2009. My posts in this community during that era could be considered empirical evidence of such. Even as Americans trampled one another in zealous haste to embrace a reformed healthcare system, I remember feeling vaguely like a lone voice of reason caught up in a stampede of healthcare reform threatening to carry me over the edge of a cliff with the rest of my 'herd'.

Self flattery and egotism being human traits, I admit feeling a vague urge to look upon this as a sign of myself being intelligent. My predictions and analysis may have been years ahead of everyone else's. A mere glance at this community and various sources of "pro-level" media, punditry and commentary would seem to confirm: there is no one anywhere in this world with a basic comprehension of healthcare reforms fundamental process. (Or, if there is, they aren't offering an opinion out in the open where it can be overheard.)

We can map the human genome. Connect with individuals on the other side of the world via internet. Map galaxies light years away. Yet, it would seem a basic and transparent analysis of healthcare reform which either approves or denies its purported benefits completely eludes us. Indeed, if I posed a question to this community, journalists, economic analysts and other purported "professionals": how does healthcare reform make health care cheaper, specifically. I know none of them could give me a valid answer. They're not equipped to contemplate matters far enough outside the box. Or, there is a media and academic bias present which constitutes a widespread and proliferate misinformation campaign. Hence a severe absence of forthcoming information on the topic.

The best someone could manage would be to recite an urban myth or stereotype: "Socializing healthcare werkz for other countries, it'll work for us". I would propose a universal constant: all responses to healthcare reform questions = lets pretend evading questions represents legitimate answers.

Thus, the totality of healthcare reform dialogue could be summarized: many believe in healthcare reform without evidence, as religious zealots with bombs strapped to them, believe in a deity. Except, there are no 72 virgins at the end of the healthcare reform rainbow.

But, I'm getting off topic. I came here not to praise healthcare reform, but to bury it within a grave of cleansing fire.

I'll save the attempt to dismantle the consensus on healthcare reform for another post before my imaginary ADHD causes me to forget what I was going to say on the topic.

Remember -- there's always a chance I'm bluffing and have noting to offer on the healthcare debate. I'm bluffing with intent to incite self reflection and critical thinking on the topic, yes. Hence, healthcare reform adherants have absolutely nothing to fear in spamming me with their irrefutable logic as to why healthcare reform and socialism in general are perfectly reasonable candidates for America.

Word.

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Gotta be honest - I really hate your posts which seemed designed only to pick a fight, that you post *before* you post anything with actual substance. This doesn't even make any sense. "there is no one anywhere in this world with a basic comprehension of healthcare reforms fundamental process" (except, of course, for you, apparently).

many believe in healthcare reform without evidence, as religious zealots with bombs strapped to them, believe in a deity. Except, there are no 72 virgins at the end of the healthcare reform rainbow.
Amusing, given that you offer no evidence for how HCR (which won't take full effect for a while yet) has failed.

Seriously, what is your argument here? HCR failed (how?) because it's an "urban myth" (like that one with the guy with a hook for a hand in the back of your car?) and a "stereotype." You haven't even said WHAT HCR is believed in "without evidence." Are all forms covered - Republicans' voucher program, Democrats' forcing us into private insurance, and more-lefty Democrats' proposals for expanding Medicare or creating a single-payer scheme?

This entire post is incomprehensible.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I consider my post an "incomprehensible" success, if only I can refer to HCR without being angry and sounding like a whiny 4 year old.

I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone. Moreso attempting to find ways to encourage people to think about issues before adhering to a position without evidence.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

"how does healthcare reform make health care cheaper, specifically."



I think you may have missed the point, socialised healthcare isn't about making health care cheaper, it's about making sure people don't die or get driven into horrendous debt because they cannot obtain healthcare.

Absolutely, socialised healthcare is more expensive. Because a lot more people who couldn't otherwise have obtained treatment, will obtain treatment.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I don't think its justifiable to answer my question by redefining what healthcare reform was intended to achieve. "Making healthcare more affordable for americans" was definitely one of the central tenets of reform with healthcare premiums being hiked as much as 20% or more on a yearly basis.

Socialised healthcare is more expensive, but not necessarily because of wider availability. Also, recent developments illustrate well how the government has found ways to deliver on their promise of cheaper healthcare.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Yes Socialization of health care is about making it cheaper.

The fact is we have guaranteed socialized health care in the US today. It is just horribly inefficient because the incentives are all screwed up and the net effect is bankrupting out country. It is also true that all socialized health care systems are cheaper per capita that what currently exists in the US and a handful of them are at least the equal and arguably superior to the health care system the US has

That said there is no reason to assume that the conditions that make socialized health care in those countries exist in the US and that socialized health care here would not look more like the Soviet medical system than the Swedish or Canadian systems. Every country is unique and what works in one will not necessarily work in another.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

"Absolutely, socialised healthcare is more expensive."

NO, it's not. That's the biggest fallacy being spread by the anti-UHC crowd.

Socialized health care is cheaper, PER CAPITA, than our bullshit "system" in the USA. In Canada, where EVERYONE is covered 100% for all necessary medical care, the per capita cost is just about HALF of what it is in the USA. And yes, that's TOTAL per capita cost. In case you're not sure of what that means (which seems to be common amongst anti-UHC pundits), that means if you add up EVERYTHING spent on health care in both countries (taxes, co-pays, co-insurance, insurance premiums, and so on), Americans pay about twice as much.

So how the hell can you say that socialized health care is more expensive? It's obviously much cheaper. But of course, those are facts I'm talking about, and how dare I introduce FACTS into this discussion, right?

If you can offer ANY evidence that socialized health care is more expensive, PLEASE, do tell. I'd love to hear it, because until you can provide concrete evidence, numbers, and sources, I call bullshit.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Anytime you remove a middle man you reduce overhead. This is common sense. How this fact eludes you or somehow constitutes a myth is beyond me. You refuse to listen to the facts about HCR by hand-waving them away as myths or stereotypes. When every developed nation with UHC has better care for cheaper costs, it's not a stereotype, it's a reality.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

You're very close to where I was going with my original post. Middle men are one key aspect, although, I suspect you may have missed a thing or two in your assessment considering a single payer system was not adopted..

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

BTW, the "every developed nation with UHC having better care for cheaper cost" explanation is an urban myth.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Anytime you remove a middle man you reduce overhead. This is common sense."

This is also patently false. It "MAY" be true but it is at best 50 - 50 odds of happening because specialization of labor is the greatest boost to productivity man has ever known.

Further if your argument does hold then why would we want to retain that added level of the government between the provider and consumer of the service? Just have the government give each person enough money to buy a catastrophic health insurance plan that covers them if they get cancer or a heart attack or something similar and leaves enough extra money to pay for all of their minor medical expenses out of pocket. No more middle men at all, just patients spending their own money and doctors providing services.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I wonder what we did wrong that health care suddenly became such a hugely relevant topic again.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking the same thing. Is there really anything left for people to say? We could just copy and paste arguments at this point.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

we're all worried about bin laden's health...

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's always been a hugely relevant topic in American politics. Every new President has to deal with the pressure from HCR. Even Bush passed some HCR.

I mean, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

I forgive you because you're a dirty foreigner, but Americans seem to have short term memory.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

It's the budget.

The fact of the matter is the Budget problem IS the health care problem. Solve that and the Debt is manageable.

And I hate to say it but I'm sorry but the reality of the world is that even those of you who are not Americans have no choice but to care about how America deals with it's budget problems because if our economy collapses yours is going down too.

The specific issue is the Paul Ryan budget plan which the Democrats are planning on using as a weapon against the republicans in the 2012 election and Newt Gingrich came out and attacked to distance himself from it earlier in the week.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

People are beginning to realize healthcare reform isn't what they were told. Wait until people have a better understanding of how reform is achieving its goals. They may very well be much more upset than they are now.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Because the Ryan proposed budget plan is affecting Republicans chances in elections in big way, that's why. Case in point: a House seat that's been Republican for many years, flipped Democratic in a special election last night in upstate New York.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Et tu, Brutalina? I've been having these deja vu flashbacks all over.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Except that healthcare reform hasn't failed. The parts that have gone into effect have kept people from being denied health coverage for pre-existing conditions and have saved lives. The only way it could possibly "fail" would be if the Supremes decide to overturn the individual mandate, and even that wouldn't technically be failure. If the Supremes overturn the law it will not be because of any deficiency or failure of the legislation, it will be because 5 of the justices on the court are bought and paid for by industry and indirectly receive money for their trouble (and in one case directly receive money from lobbyists who are fighting healthcare reform).

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Um, Big Businesses are in favor of the Patient Affordable Care and Protection Act. In fact the ONLY business in the health care sector who opposed it at all were the insurance companies and their only opposition was that the penalties for not having insurance were not severe enough.

Fact is an honest name for that Bill would have been "The Drug, Insurance, and Medical Device Manufacturer Profit Protection and Maximization Act".

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I think it has failed. People are merely unaware of it.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Not sure what kind of responses you want to a post like this except to vent about what you hate, which I guess is fine. You should have no trouble finding people agreeing with you however, honestly, when I read this my first thought was "oh no, one of those again".

I feel it completely pointless to answer a post like this one with my own observations from 3 countries health care systems, one of them being the US. Just seems like a waste of time and effort and an invite to be kicked around text-wise.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I wish I had your aloofness. I guess to you, who actually has extensive experience with different systems, being told that you don't know anything and your reality is a lie, is a good enough reason not to bother with people who will never accept that you actually know something.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I'm an American citizen and a US Army veteran, but I can only use the VA for stuff related to one injury, not my general health. I'm a regular civilian employee now, reliant on regular civilian insurance. I have a chronic health condition (genetic, auto-immune, unrelated to lifestyle and health habits) that will require medication and monitoring for the rest of my life. Under the old system, where insurance companies can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, I'd be FUCKED.

If I have to move, if my job gets downsized, if I want to work anywhere else, my insurance plan would have to change. If that were to happen, under the old rules, I could be denied coverage. It could devastate my savings. And then, if I didn't have coverage, I wouldn't be able to get the treatment I need to manage my condition to PREVENT it from becoming severe. Right now, I'm able to work full time with minimal problems. Without medication and proper management of my condition, I could end up completely disabled and unable to work... which means I'd be LESS productive to society (in addition to being completely miserable and in horrible pain). I'd be in and out of the emergency room with complications (because without insurance, no doctors will treat you preventatively), some of which could be life-threatening.

So... how screwed am I without AT LEAST the small improvements made under UHC? Pretty damned screwed, for a condition that I have NO control over, couldn't have prevented, and can't get rid of for the rest of my life. I would have to live in fear of losing my job, because any change in insurance could leave me totally high and dry.

The funniest thing is how much more efficient even my current economic burden on the health care system would be under UHC. With less overhead, and no for-profit insurance companies skimming off the top of everyone's premiums, it would cost much less for EVERYONE, including those with chronic conditions.

Oh... and then there's the issue of waiting times. Do you know how long it takes me to get an appointment with a new specialist? I work at a major medical center, and even as an employee, it sometimes takes up to four months to get a regular appointment unless its an emergency.

*sigh*

So much more to say, but for those who are vehemently against UHC, I feel I'd be wasting my breath. Facts mean nothing to those people.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

One thing that other countries do right is acknowledging the rise of Nurse Practitioners. If you get an appointment there, chances are you'll get an NP. They're perfectly qualified for general practitioner work, and can easily refer you to a specialist the same way everyone else does. The thing is, the US has a stigma against NPs in that people don't believe they're qualified, or people who become NPs are accepting that they won't make as much as doctors, or whatever nonsense people make up. NPs demonstratively cut costs and free up doctors to perform their specialized work.

To compare the education(time) requirements:

NPs go to a hospital-based diploma program for 3 years to get their Nursing degrees, then complete a Master's/Doctorate for 1-3(not sure) years to get the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse title (APRN), but we just call them NPs.

Doctors, on the other hand, need some sort of bachelor's degree from college (3-4 years) then they go to medical school (3-4 years) then they need a residency (3-7 years) then they can optionally do a fellowship (1-4 years) for further specialization such as oncology or ophthalmology or whatnot.

So I'm just adding to your point there. NPs as a national imperative is an easy facet we can take away from the systems of other countries, but we won't even consider it because apparently EVERYTHING under a socialized system is inherently worse.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I like how you call for evidence, then call said evidence a "myth" and suggest it isn't valid. This is your major problem, if evidence doesn't fit your worldview, you deny it.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Or, my evidence not supporting your point of view, causes you to deny it.