Speaking of Sweden: Single Payer FAIL

[CID1990]

Right on time

The Atlantic article lists the US as being dismal in the following categories:

"The highest rate of death by violence, by a stunning margin
The highest rate of death by car accident, also dramatically so
The highest chance that a child will die before age 5
The second-highest rate of death by coronary heart disease
The second-highest rate of death by lung disease
The highest teen pregnancy rate
The highest rate of women dying due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth"

Most of these are linked to lifestyle and culture (yes we are fat and lazy)

But it has little to do with Canada or Sweden having better healthcare systems

Congratulations, Kalm... you graduated from simple non sequiturs to non sequiturs with links

True, complicated systems are challenging to compare, and lifestyle plays a role for sure. Then again, lifestyle is also a part of healthcare. For example, preventative medicine like low dose bp and cholesterol meds in the 30's can help prevent heart desease later.

In any event you should have kept reading as the article addressed your points as well...in a less douchey manner.

Not that one factor is likely to be able to explain everything. The panelists identified a host of factors: More than other countries, our health care system is fragmented, unaffordable for many people, and short on primary care. Of the countries studied, we have the highest rate of children living in poverty. More of our communities are built around cars, which may discourage exercise.


As individuals, the study found, "Americans are less likely to smoke and may drink less heavily than their counterparts in peer countries, but they consume the most calories per capita, abuse more prescription and illicit drugs, are less likely to fasten seatbelts, have more traffic accidents involving alcohol, and own more firearms." Yet even fit, nonsmoking Americans have higher disease rates than those elsewhere, the report said.

The ONLY items in all of this that would imply our healthcare system is lacking are tow of the one I bolded:

Kids living in poverty - they already get free healthcare, and it is just as bureaucratic as in Canada

Preventative healthcare such as low does BP meds to people in their 30s- we have that too

So again, you've posted something that really has nothing to do with the comparative quality of healthcare between Canada, Sweden and the US, but your prefatory sentence implies that these "outcomes" are directly tied to the amount of money we invest in healthcare. They are not.

[D1B]

A mild, charming highlight of my day - watching Boldlie, Zerobraincells and BDICKHEAD gettin schooled by Kalm et al.

Sorry to make your Friday so horrible.

Boldlie, you're getting shredded like the Southern Georgia D.



Left: D1B Right: Boldlie

[Baldy]

Sorry to make your Friday so horrible.

Boldlie, you're getting shredded like the Southern Georgia D.



Left: D1B Right: Boldlie

Really? A seal ROFL at a stupid fat ass whale who beached himself.
I see it all the time too, just surprised you admitted it.

[D1B]

Boldlie, you're getting shredded like the Southern Georgia D.



Left: D1B Right: Boldlie

Really? A seal ROFL at a stupid fat ass whale who beached himself.
I see it all the time too, just surprised you admitted it.

Typical dumbfuck conk - knows nothing about nature or wildlife, except how to destroy it.

[kalm]

True, complicated systems are challenging to compare, and lifestyle plays a role for sure. Then again, lifestyle is also a part of healthcare. For example, preventative medicine like low dose bp and cholesterol meds in the 30's can help prevent heart desease later.

In any event you should have kept reading as the article addressed your points as well...in a less douchey manner.

The ONLY items in all of this that would imply our healthcare system is lacking are tow of the one I bolded:

Kids living in poverty - they already get free healthcare, and it is just as bureaucratic as in Canada

Preventative healthcare such as low does BP meds to people in their 30s- we have that too

So again, you've posted something that really has nothing to do with the comparative quality of healthcare between Canada, Sweden and the US, but your prefatory sentence implies that these "outcomes" are directly tied to the amount of money we invest in healthcare. They are not.

Except that too many people have been uninsured and therefore don't take advantage of preventative medicine. Hell there's people that have insurance who don't out of fear of what they might find. What are the healthcare related bankruptcy numbers in single payer systems like compared to the US?

We spend $3000 more per capita than the next 3 highest countries and nearly twice to over twice as much for the rest. Where is the money going and why shouldn't we expect measurably superior outcomes?

I think outcomes are probably comparable between many OECD countries. Some do better in certain categories than others and we can pick nits till the cows come home. But the title of this thread was "single payer fail". we are spending roughly twice as much for similar outcomes. That's my point.

[GannonFan]

The ONLY items in all of this that would imply our healthcare system is lacking are tow of the one I bolded:

Kids living in poverty - they already get free healthcare, and it is just as bureaucratic as in Canada

Preventative healthcare such as low does BP meds to people in their 30s- we have that too

So again, you've posted something that really has nothing to do with the comparative quality of healthcare between Canada, Sweden and the US, but your prefatory sentence implies that these "outcomes" are directly tied to the amount of money we invest in healthcare. They are not.

Except that too many people have been uninsured and therefore don't take advantage of preventative medicine. Hell there's people that have insurance who don't out of fear of what they might find. What are the healthcare related bankruptcy numbers in single payer systems like compared to the US?

We spend $3000 more per capita than the next 3 highest countries and nearly twice to over twice as much for the rest. Where is the money going and why shouldn't we expect measurably superior outcomes?

I think outcomes are probably comparable between many OECD countries. Some do better in certain categories than others and we can pick nits till the cows come home. But the title of this thread was "single payer fail". we are spending roughly twice as much for similar outcomes. That's my point.

But that just glosses over some of the very real issues that CID brings up when you try to just equate outcomes. Clearly outcomes are very dependent on the culture of the countries you are looking at, and there are clearly cultural aspects that are truly unique, or at least predominant, in America that you don't find elsewhere. We don't have an obesity problem because people are uneducated about eating too much and exercising too little. Everyone knows how people get fat and we still get fatter than anyone else in the world. There's no preventative medicine that's going to reverse that - we already know we're fat as a country, having a primary care doc confirm that we are every 6 or 12 months isn't going to change that. There are some things that are unique to America as a culture and dumb stubbornness is certainly high on that list.

[kalm]

Except that too many people have been uninsured and therefore don't take advantage of preventative medicine. Hell there's people that have insurance who don't out of fear of what they might find. What are the healthcare related bankruptcy numbers in single payer systems like compared to the US?

We spend $3000 more per capita than the next 3 highest countries and nearly twice to over twice as much for the rest. Where is the money going and why shouldn't we expect measurably superior outcomes?

I think outcomes are probably comparable between many OECD countries. Some do better in certain categories than others and we can pick nits till the cows come home. But the title of this thread was "single payer fail". we are spending roughly twice as much for similar outcomes. That's my point.

But that just glosses over some of the very real issues that CID brings up when you try to just equate outcomes. Clearly outcomes are very dependent on the culture of the countries you are looking at, and there are clearly cultural aspects that are truly unique, or at least predominant, in America that you don't find elsewhere. We don't have an obesity problem because people are uneducated about eating too much and exercising too little. Everyone knows how people get fat and we still get fatter than anyone else in the world. There's no preventative medicine that's going to reverse that - we already know we're fat as a country, having a primary care doc confirm that we are every 6 or 12 months isn't going to change that. There are some things that are unique to America as a culture and dumb stubbornness is certainly high on that list.

I will concede there are some cultural disadvantages. I'd also guess we rely on processed/junk food more as well. But I don't think this renders studies regarding outcomes null and void .

[CID1990]

The ONLY items in all of this that would imply our healthcare system is lacking are tow of the one I bolded:

Kids living in poverty - they already get free healthcare, and it is just as bureaucratic as in Canada

Preventative healthcare such as low does BP meds to people in their 30s- we have that too

So again, you've posted something that really has nothing to do with the comparative quality of healthcare between Canada, Sweden and the US, but your prefatory sentence implies that these "outcomes" are directly tied to the amount of money we invest in healthcare. They are not.

Except that too many people have been uninsured and therefore don't take advantage of preventative medicine. Hell there's people that have insurance who don't out of fear of what they might find. What are the healthcare related bankruptcy numbers in single payer systems like compared to the US?

We spend $3000 more per capita than the next 3 highest countries and nearly twice to over twice as much for the rest. Where is the money going and why shouldn't we expect measurably superior outcomes?

I think outcomes are probably comparable between many OECD countries. Some do better in certain categories than others and we can pick nits till the cows come home. But the title of this thread was "single payer fail". we are spending roughly twice as much for similar outcomes. That's my point.

Are you suggesting that we would pay less than we do now with single payer?

And given that the poorest among us DO have single payer and yet they also suffer from a lack of preventative care (because not having insurance has little to do with not seeking preventative care- young healthies just don't bother until they get sick) because they only take advantage of available med care when they need it.

All this said, I think the original post highlights that although the grass is always greener on the other side, single payer also has it's drawbacks. I prefer our current system because I prefer the disadvantages that go with it over the ones they have in the UK, Canada and the EU. I do not have the same faith in our government to create efficient systems some of you do. In fact, everything this government touches pretty much turns to shit.

[kalm]

Except that too many people have been uninsured and therefore don't take advantage of preventative medicine. Hell there's people that have insurance who don't out of fear of what they might find. What are the healthcare related bankruptcy numbers in single payer systems like compared to the US?

We spend $3000 more per capita than the next 3 highest countries and nearly twice to over twice as much for the rest. Where is the money going and why shouldn't we expect measurably superior outcomes?

I think outcomes are probably comparable between many OECD countries. Some do better in certain categories than others and we can pick nits till the cows come home. But the title of this thread was "single payer fail". we are spending roughly twice as much for similar outcomes. That's my point.

Are you suggesting that we would pay less than we do now with single payer?

And given that the poorest among us DO have single payer and yet they also suffer from a lack of preventative care (because not having insurance has little to do with not seeking preventative care- young healthies just don't bother until they get sick) because they only take advantage of available med care when they need it.

All this said, I think the original post highlights that although the grass is always greener on the other side, single payer also has it's drawbacks. I prefer our current system because I prefer the disadvantages that go with it over the ones they have in the UK, Canada and the EU. I do not have the same faith in our government to create efficient systems some of you do. In fact, everything this government touches pretty much turns to shit.

I get your concerns regarding government. But we've had a market based system for quite some time and it has done very little to control costs.

An interesting read:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/07/24/why-doe ... ht-answer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

The ONLY items in all of this that would imply our healthcare system is lacking are tow of the one I bolded:

Kids living in poverty - they already get free healthcare, and it is just as bureaucratic as in Canada

Preventative healthcare such as low does BP meds to people in their 30s- we have that too

So again, you've posted something that really has nothing to do with the comparative quality of healthcare between Canada, Sweden and the US, but your prefatory sentence implies that these "outcomes" are directly tied to the amount of money we invest in healthcare. They are not.

Except that too many people have been uninsured and therefore don't take advantage of preventative medicine. Hell there's people that have insurance who don't out of fear of what they might find. What are the healthcare related bankruptcy numbers in single payer systems like compared to the US?

We spend $3000 more per capita than the next 3 highest countries and nearly twice to over twice as much for the rest. Where is the money going and why shouldn't we expect measurably superior outcomes?

I think outcomes are probably comparable between many OECD countries. Some do better in certain categories than others and we can pick nits till the cows come home. But the title of this thread was "single payer fail". we are spending roughly twice as much for similar outcomes. That's my point.

And now there are 4,000,000 MORE uninsured, and over 65% of those who HAVE signed up for Obamacare were already covered under ANOTHER health plan before that one got canceled....Obamacare=big win for the conks.

[Chizzang]

Hey... on a side note:
Obama Care created two jobs at the company I work for (wait for it)
It's such a debacle the HR department had to hire two more assistants to unravel all the gibberish

(completely serious) Obama Care creating Jobs

[Baldy]

Hey... on a side note:
Obama Care created two jobs at the company I work for (wait for it)
It's such a debacle the HR department had to hire two more assistants to unravel all the gibberish

(completely serious) Obama Care creating Jobs

...and that is only a precursor to what is coming down the road.

[kalm]

Hey... on a side note:
Obama Care created two jobs at the company I work for (wait for it)
It's such a debacle the HR department had to hire two more assistants to unravel all the gibberish

(completely serious) Obama Care creating Jobs

...and that is only a precursor to what is coming down the road.

Because a market based healthcare system hasn't created bureaucratic jobs.

[YoUDeeMan]

Typical dumbfuck conk - knows nothing about nature or wildlife, except how to destroy it.

Uhhh...you identified yourself as the whale. Isn't it the whale that is trying to destroy the seal?



Just sayin'.

[CID1990]

Are you suggesting that we would pay less than we do now with single payer?

And given that the poorest among us DO have single payer and yet they also suffer from a lack of preventative care (because not having insurance has little to do with not seeking preventative care- young healthies just don't bother until they get sick) because they only take advantage of available med care when they need it.

All this said, I think the original post highlights that although the grass is always greener on the other side, single payer also has it's drawbacks. I prefer our current system because I prefer the disadvantages that go with it over the ones they have in the UK, Canada and the EU. I do not have the same faith in our government to create efficient systems some of you do. In fact, everything this government touches pretty much turns to ****.

I get your concerns regarding government. But we've had a market based system for quite some time and it has done very little to control costs.

An interesting read:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/07/24/why-doe ... ht-answer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our system is HARDLY market driven.

In 1930 it was market driven. Today it is tort and insurance driven. Again, our system has issues but attacking the symptoms (high costs) and not the disease (see above) with socialized medicine is NOT the answer

[Baldy]

...and that is only a precursor to what is coming down the road.

Because a market based healthcare system hasn't created bureaucratic jobs.

What CID said, but since the "market based" system is regulated to the Nth degree, of course it has created bureaucratic jobs. A socialized single payer system will only create countless more, exponentially.

[kalm]

Because a market based healthcare system hasn't created bureaucratic jobs.

What CID said, but since the "market based" system is regulated to the Nth degree, of course it has created bureaucratic jobs. A socialized single payer system will only create countless more, exponentially.

You walk into a Dr.'s office that sees 30-40 people a day and there are 2 full time front desk receptionists and often a couple of back office administrators, and files upon files to be managed by the myriad of different insurance companies, vendors, etc, all due to the uber-complicated system in place which, as CID points out is largely multi payer insurance driven.

I agree it may not be completely market driven but it's more market driven compared with who we're talking about in this thread.

And it's unneccessarily inefficient and expensive...by the billions...

http://news.yahoo.com/report-us-health- ... 06406.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

What CID said, but since the "market based" system is regulated to the Nth degree, of course it has created bureaucratic jobs. A socialized single payer system will only create countless more, exponentially.

You walk into a Dr.'s office that sees 30-40 people a day and there are 2 full time front desk receptionists and often a couple of back office administrators, and files upon files to be managed by the myriad of different insurance companies, vendors, etc, all due to the uber-complicated system in place which, as CID points out is largely multi payer insurance driven.

I agree it may not be completely market driven but it's more market driven compared with who we're talking about in this thread.

And it's unneccessarily inefficient and expensive...by the billions...

http://news.yahoo.com/report-us-health- ... 06406.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whew...ok. I'll type it a little slower so maybe you can understand.

Our health care system is over regulated to the Nth degree. A byproduct of over regulation are increased compliance costs. Compliance costs are the root cause of waste. Because of over regulation, competition has decreased which raises costs. It's simple...start deregulation, increase and make insurance companies compete against each other for business and costs will be reduces by billions almost instantly.

If you actually believe that a socialized government run single payer system will decrease costs without dramatically affecting our standard of care, you are 10X more ignorant than I would have ever thought.

[kalm]

You walk into a Dr.'s office that sees 30-40 people a day and there are 2 full time front desk receptionists and often a couple of back office administrators, and files upon files to be managed by the myriad of different insurance companies, vendors, etc, all due to the uber-complicated system in place which, as CID points out is largely multi payer insurance driven.

I agree it may not be completely market driven but it's more market driven compared with who we're talking about in this thread.

And it's unneccessarily inefficient and expensive...by the billions...

http://news.yahoo.com/report-us-health- ... 06406.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whew...ok. I'll type it a little slower so maybe you can understand.

Our health care system is over regulated to the Nth degree. A byproduct of over regulation are increased compliance costs. Compliance costs are the root cause of waste. Because of over regulation, competition has decreased which raises costs. It's simple...start deregulation, increase and make insurance companies compete against each other for business and costs will be reduces by billions almost instantly.

If you actually believe that a socialized government run single payer system will decrease costs without dramatically affecting our standard of care, you are 10X more ignorant than I would have ever thought.

Thanks for typing slow, I think it might actually help you out.

How much of the admin costs are associated with government and how much is associated with insurance companies?

I'm cool with doing away with unneccesary regs too. Exactly which ones would you kill?

And yes, as we've already discussed, socialized single payer systems already exist where outcomes are at least comparable to ours, and the saving is over half (sorry to break that to ya ...again) That's not to say we couldnt engineer an even better system or perhaps a hybrid universal basic health and Cadillac plans available for those willing to pay extra.

[Pwns]

The problem with the two-tiered health care system you talk about is that doctors will inevitably work with patients who have the private plans. I mean, it's not like doctors these days are starved for patients so they can choose to not accept patients on government health plans.

With our aging population and growing numbers of diseases like diabetes we need to beef up our numbers of doctors before we even think about single payer.

[kalm]

The problem with the two-tiered health care system you talk about is that doctors will inevitably work with patients who have the private plans. I mean, it's not like doctors these days are starved for patients so they can choose to not accept patients on government health plans.

With our aging population and growing numbers of diseases like diabetes we need to beef up our numbers of doctors before we even think about single payer.

Probably true.

Single payer = good paying jobs!

[Chizzang]

If you actually believe that a socialized government run single payer system will decrease costs without dramatically affecting our standard of care, you are 10X more ignorant than I would have ever thought.

That's not very nice - I think you can make your point - without all that extra snarky- ness
I think everybody agrees that government run anything is bloated and ridiculous (See CID1990)
But the standards of care thing is debatable

[Baldy]

Whew...ok. I'll type it a little slower so maybe you can understand.

Our health care system is over regulated to the Nth degree. A byproduct of over regulation are increased compliance costs. Compliance costs are the root cause of waste. Because of over regulation, competition has decreased which raises costs. It's simple...start deregulation, increase and make insurance companies compete against each other for business and costs will be reduces by billions almost instantly.

If you actually believe that a socialized government run single payer system will decrease costs without dramatically affecting our standard of care, you are 10X more ignorant than I would have ever thought.

Thanks for typing slow, I think it might actually help you out.

How much of the admin costs are associated with government and how much is associated with insurance companies?

I'm cool with doing away with unneccesary regs too. Exactly which ones would you kill?

And yes, as we've already discussed, socialized single payer systems already exist where outcomes are at least comparable to ours, and the saving is over half (sorry to break that to ya ...again) That's not to say we couldnt engineer an even better system or perhaps a hybrid universal basic health and Cadillac plans available for those willing to pay extra.

Since I used to audit health insurance companies in a previous life, I can tell you that the administrative costs for private companies are a minute fraction of what it is for the government. Your government just spent over $600,000,000 for a broken website. I would be shocked if United Healthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cigna spent $600M on their entire IT infrastructure last year...COLLECTIVELY. On top of that, private insurance companies are much more accurate when they pay claims. You know, they actually have an incentive to pay claims accurately.

I was auditing a hospital in Nashville, TN once and noticed a claim for one procedure for one patient on one visit to the hospital was paid 18 times by Medicare...18 months in a row. I brought it to the attention of one of the hospital administrators, and they said oh we know, we have been calling them for months now trying to stop them from paying. Your government at it's finest.

I didn't mention anything about "comparable" outcomes. Read the article again. Sitting in a year long (or longer) queue to receive even the most simple procedures is unacceptable and would do nothing but destroy our standard of care, but hey, at least the outcome would be comparable.
"Comparable outcomes"....yeah I like that. I can choose to either walk or fly to Los Angeles, but in the end it doesn't really matter just as long as the outcome is "comparable", right?

[Chizzang]

Since I used to audit health insurance companies in a previous life, I can tell you that the administrative costs for private companies are a minute fraction of what it is for the government. Your government just spent over $600,000,000 for a broken website. I would be shocked if United Healthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cigna spent $600M on their entire IT infrastructure last year...COLLECTIVELY. On top of that, private insurance companies are much more accurate when they pay claims. You know, they actually have an incentive to pay claims accurately.

I was auditing a hospital in Nashville, TN once and noticed a claim for one procedure for one patient on one visit to the hospital was paid 18 times by Medicare...18 months in a row. I brought it to the attention of one of the hospital administrators, and they said oh we know, we have been calling them for months now trying to stop them from paying. Your government at it's finest.

I didn't mention anything about "comparable" outcomes. Read the article again. Sitting in a year long (or longer) queue to receive even the most simple procedures is unacceptable and would do nothing but destroy our standard of care, but hey, at least the outcome would be comparable.
"Comparable outcomes"....yeah I like that. I can choose to either walk or fly to Los Angeles, but in the end it doesn't really matter just as long as the outcome is "comparable", right?

Solid post
Nothing on there can be verified (but a strong post none the less)
however you do seem more angry than usual these days... are you getting enough sleep?

I worry

[Baldy]

If you actually believe that a socialized government run single payer system will decrease costs without dramatically affecting our standard of care, you are 10X more ignorant than I would have ever thought.

But the standards of care thing is debatable

Really?
Tell you what. I have to have an MRI done on my knee. If I called my doctor tomorrow, I can probably have it done by the end of the week. You go to Sweden and have the same MRI done. When you get back next year with the results from your MRI, and I'm back to 100% after having my ACL and MCL surgically repaired we'll debate the standards of care thingy then. Capiche?