United Healthcare CEO killed

[+ augustus]

45 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Unfortunately they are only available to those who can afford them, either through insurance or wealth. 

Which is nearly everyone.  People with nothing can still get charity care. No one is denied cancer care or has to wait months or years for a hip replacement.  The American whiners here expect unlimited health care services at NO COST TO THEM.  That is their problem.  They will spend tens of thousands on a car, or expensive vacation or clothes but a co-pay is an outrage to them.  

Edited December 15, 2024 by augustus

[marylander1940]

6 hours ago, augustus said:

You must not get around much.   Even with its shortcomings, the US healthcare system is the most advanced in the world.  When people like you figure out how to supply the gold standard of healthcare at an inexpensive cost, then all the problems will be solved.  People like you and the other complainers here presume to know the answer, without having a clue as to how things work.

Agreed, it's not perfect but our health care system has produced inventions, procedures, and medicines of all kinds enjoyed by all of mankind!

[+ augustus]

3 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

Agreed, it's not perfect but our health care system has produced inventions, procedures, and medicines of all kinds enjoyed by all of mankind!

Exactly.  Most of the world is a horror story with their healthcare systems.  Waiting lists so long the disease consumes you first.  What these whiners want is to pay NOTHING into the system and get services on demand.  

Edited December 15, 2024 by augustus

[caliguy]

28 minutes ago, augustus said:

Too funny.  Medicare reimbursements don't cover the cost of services.  Medicaid is much worse.  That is why private insurance costs are so high, to make up for the shortfall.  It's called "cost sharing".  Without the private insurance market, Medicare and Medicaid would collapse the Federal Government.

As I said, people who don't know how the system works.......

There is supplemental plans like Medicare Advantage. At any rate, I think if the rest of the world figured this out then so can we. 

[marylander1940]

10 minutes ago, Vin Marco said:

Respectively, like @Luv2play pointed out, you're confusing healthcare system with healthcare science. 

It's a symbiotic relationship.

[+ augustus]

14 minutes ago, caliguy said:

There is supplemental plans like Medicare Advantage. At any rate, I think if the rest of the world figured this out then so can we. 

The rest of the world hasn't figured out jack.  The rest of the world deals with it by rationing.  Again, you don't get it.  "Medicare for All" would bankrupt the Federal Government, as the nearly $5 trillion healthcare spending would overwhelm it. 

And "Medicare Advantage" is NOT a supplemental plan.  You have a choice between traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

[+ augustus]

4 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

A major reason for this is that the majority of healthcare services in the U.S. are delivered by private entities that aim to generate profit. This profit-driven model leads to higher costs for patients, limited access to care, and a focus on treatments rather than prevention, further contributing to disparities in outcomes.

The profit generated by the insurance companies are a fraction of the over $4 trillion healthcare spending in this country.  I'm game for an excess profits tax, but it won't solve the problems.

[caliguy]

20 minutes ago, augustus said:

"Medicare for All" would bankrupt the Federal Government, as the nearly $5 trillion healthcare spending would overwhelm it. 

• A recent study by Yale epidemiologists found that Medicare for All would save around 68,000 lives a year while reducing U.S. health care spending by around 13%, or $450 billion a year.
• Medicare for All spending would be approximately $37.8 trillion between 2017 and 2026, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. That amounts to about $5 trillion in savings over that time. These savings would come from reducing administrative costs and allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices.
• Other studies by think tanks and government agencies have analyzed single-payer proposals at the state and federal levels. Most found Medicare for All would reduce our total health care spending.
• Even a study by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center found that Medicare for All would save around $2 trillion over a 10-year period.

[+ augustus]

9 minutes ago, caliguy said:

• A recent study by Yale epidemiologists found that Medicare for All would save around 68,000 lives a year while reducing U.S. health care spending by around 13%, or $450 billion a year.
• Medicare for All spending would be approximately $37.8 trillion between 2017 and 2026, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. That amounts to about $5 trillion in savings over that time. These savings would come from reducing administrative costs and allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices.
• Other studies by think tanks and government agencies have analyzed single-payer proposals at the state and federal levels. Most found Medicare for All would reduce our total health care spending.
• Even a study by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center found that Medicare for All would save around $2 trillion over a 10-year period.

Again, you don't get it.  The private insurance market pays for most of the healthcare spending in this country, either through direct payments or cost sharing.  Without that the Federal Government would collapse.  There would have to be massive tax increases and rationing.  A $2 trillion saving over 10 years won't cut it, since US healthcare spending is approaching $5 trillion per year. It's the big, bad capitalist system that pays for most of this.

Edited December 15, 2024 by augustus

[+ Lucky]

12 minutes ago, augustus said:

Again, you don't get it.  The private insurance market pays for most of the healthcare spending in this country, either through direct payments or cost sharing.  Without that the Federal Government would collapse.  There would have to be massive tax increases and rationing.  A $2 trillion saving over 10 years won't cut it, since US healthcare spending is approaching $5 trillion per year. It's the big, bad capitalist system that pays for most of this.

And with whose money do they pay for it?

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, Vin Marco said:

Actually, it's not. I completely understand what symbiosis is and innovation does not always help cost/affordability/access to ...

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by marylander1940

[marylander1940]

Possibly our greatest contribution to mankind and the only right granted by the Constitution and not the bill of rights. It has not only encouraged people to think and create but you can't fathom progress without the incentives, name recognition, compensation, etc. From the arts to science, technology, and certainly medicine. 

 

[+ ApexNomad]

5 hours ago, augustus said:

The profit generated by the insurance companies are a fraction of the over $4 trillion healthcare spending in this country.  I'm game for an excess profits tax, but it won't solve the problems.

Profits generated by insurance companies are just one piece of the puzzle. However, the broader issue lies in the profit-driven nature of the entire system, including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers. These entities often prioritize revenue over patient outcomes, which contributes significantly to the $4 trillion in healthcare spending. While an excess profits tax could address some inequities, comprehensive reform would require tackling these systemic inefficiencies and misaligned incentives to create a system that prioritizes prevention, affordability, and equitable access for everyone.

[+ ApexNomad]

5 hours ago, augustus said:

The rest of the world hasn't figured out jack.  The rest of the world deals with it by rationing.  Again, you don't get it.  "Medicare for All" would bankrupt the Federal Government, as the nearly $5 trillion healthcare spending would overwhelm it. 

And "Medicare Advantage" is NOT a supplemental plan.  You have a choice between traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

While the cost of Medicare for All is high, calling it a path to bankruptcy ignores the potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies. The real question is how to finance the program fairly and ensure the transition doesn’t cause undue disruption—a political challenge, not an economic impossibility.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Jake Jonez (@jjakejonezz) • Instagram reel

WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM

---

26K likes, 626 comments - jjakejonezz on December 15, 2024: "can’t even take credit for this genius @xavierquin101 On TT @sarkopkin on 📷".

 

[+ augustus]

3 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

While the cost of Medicare for All is high, calling it a path to bankruptcy ignores the potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies. The real question is how to finance the program fairly and ensure the transition doesn’t cause undue disruption—a political challenge, not an economic impossibility.

Tell me a socialized system that works please WITHOUT rationing and waiting lists.  And what is the "potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies"?  Obamacare was supposed to solve that.  It did restrict Medicare payouts by coding all ailments, but raised costs with mandates and other provisions. Obamacare never identified whatever drives the costs.

You already cited the profits of insurance companies but that is a small part of the nearly $5 trillion in healthcare spending. Where else is the savings going to come from with a socialized system?  There will be rationing and waiting lists like the rest of the world and the politicians know it.  They also know raising taxes by trillions of dollars will never fly. 

PLEASE TELL ME A SOCIALIZED SYSTEM THAT WORKS.  WHERE THERE IS NO RATIONING, WAITING LISTS OR DRUG SHORTAGES.  You all keep clamoring for this and yet CANNOT CITE A SYSTEM IN THE WORLD that delivers like the US system.  A system where even elective surgery can be scheduled within 2 weeks in most cases.  

IF SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE IS SO MARVELOUS WHY CAN'T ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT CITE SUCH A SYSTEM AS AN EXAMPLE??????????????????????????

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ augustus]

2 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

While the cost of Medicare for All is high, calling it a path to bankruptcy ignores the potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies.

The "potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies" wouldn't come close the trillions of dollars supplied by the private sector provided insurance system annually.  The numbers don't add up.  

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ augustus]

Wasn't long ago that Obamacare was supposed to bring down costs and deliver better healthcare and all its supporters passionately believed it would work.  Well, what happened????  The system pre-Obamacare was better and less expensive.  A high-risk pool could have been set up to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Socialized medicine healthcare is great for routine care and abysmal for other needs.  It's a death sentence for people with cancer and heart disease.  

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ ApexNomad]

15 minutes ago, augustus said:

Wasn't long ago that Obamacare was supposed to bring down costs and deliver better healthcare and all its supporters passionately believed it would work.  Well, what happened????  The system pre-Obamacare was better and less expensive.  A high-risk pool could have been set up to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Socialized medicine healthcare is great for routine care and abysmal for other needs.  It's a death sentence for people with cancer and heart disease.  

It’s easy to point to the gaps in Obamacare as proof that it didn’t work, but I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In many ways, Obamacare represented the first real attempt to address systemic issues in our healthcare system on a national scale, something that previous administrations had failed to do for decades. Was it perfect? No. But is it fair to call it a massive failure when it expanded access to millions of people, eliminated the pre-existing condition loophole, and reduced the uninsured rate to historic lows? I don’t think so.

What we often forget in the criticism of the ACA is that, despite its shortcomings, it fundamentally shifted the conversation about healthcare in the U.S. Yes, premiums and drug costs still remain high, and there are gaps, especially in states that chose not to expand Medicaid. But to dismiss the law outright ignores how much it helped millions of Americans who were previously shut out of healthcare. When we hold any system to a standard of perfection, we risk losing sight of the progress it made. In fact, even today, millions of people benefit from its protections—especially in terms of ensuring access to care for the most vulnerable populations.

The reality is that healthcare reform is never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and any attempt to solve these deep-rooted problems will face hurdles—whether it’s Obamacare, Medicare for All, or something else entirely. What I think we need to focus on is not just criticizing what hasn’t worked, but also finding ways to improve and build on the progress we’ve made. It’s not perfect, but Obamacare was a critical step toward a more inclusive healthcare system. And any future solutions will require learning from its challenges to create something that works for everyone.

[caliguy]

42 minutes ago, augustus said:

Tell me a socialized system that works please WITHOUT rationing and waiting lists. 

Wait times in universal coverage systems

Data from other nations show that universal coverage does not necessarily result in substantially longer wait times. In fact, there are a variety of circumstances in which the United States’ peer nations have shorter wait times.

The most comprehensive source of international comparative data on health care is the Commonwealth Fund’s “Mirror, Mirror” series, which, in 2017, examined a variety of metrics across 10 European countries and the United States. Four of these metrics were particularly useful for studying wait times.¹³

• Patients reported that they saw a doctor or nurse on the same or next day the last time they sought medical care.
• Doctors reported that patients often experience difficulty getting specialized tests—for example, CT and MRI scans.
• Patients reported that they waited two months or longer for a specialist appointment.
• Patients reported that they waited four months or longer for elective or nonemergency surgery.

On each of these metrics, the United States performed worse than several nations with universal coverage, though no individual nation outperforms the United States on every metric. For example, only 51 percent of U.S. patients reported being able to see a provider within a day, compared with 53 percent, 56 percent, and 67 percent of patients in Germany, France, and Australia, respectively.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly 30 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients have difficulty getting a specialized test, compared with only 11 percent and 15 percent of doctors in Australia and Sweden, respectively.¹⁵ U.S. outcomes on the other two metrics were better across the board but still show that the United States performs worse than other nations with more equitable health care coverage systems. For instance, in the United States, 4 percent of patients reported waiting four months or longer for nonemergency surgery, compared with only 2 percent of French patients and 0 percent of German patients.¹⁶ For specialist appointments, the situation is even worse: 6 percent of U.S. patients reported waiting two months or longer for an appointment, compared with only 4 percent of French patients and 3 percent of German patients.¹⁷

[+ ApexNomad]

36 minutes ago, augustus said:

The "potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies" wouldn't come close the trillions of dollars supplied by the private sector provided insurance system annually.  The numbers don't add up.  

I hear you, I do. I understand your concerns. You’re right that the current private sector system involves massive spending, but I think it’s important to examine where that money goes and the inefficiencies within it. The private insurance system incurs high administrative costs—about 15-20% of premiums go toward overhead and profits, compared to Medicare’s 2%. These costs don’t directly benefit patient care, and reducing them would free up substantial resources.

The profit-driven model of the private sector doesn’t prioritize preventative care. This leads people to delay necessary treatment until it becomes more urgent and expensive. This is a form of rationing—rationing by price—where those who can’t afford care suffer the consequences. While countries with socialized healthcare do face some waiting lists, these are often overstated compared to the U.S., where lack of insurance or underinsurance results in similar or longer delays for the most vulnerable.

You’re right that Medicare for All would be expensive in the short term, but over time, bulk purchasing, negotiating drug prices, and eliminating the profit margins of private insurers would save the country trillions. The U.S. currently spends far more on prescription drugs than other countries, largely because we lack the ability to negotiate prices with Big Pharma. Socialized systems negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, saving billions.

The real question for me isn’t whether the transition would be flawless, but whether we can afford to continue a system where healthcare is driven by profit, leading to preventable deaths because people can’t access the care they need.

[+ augustus]

36 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

The reality is that healthcare reform is never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and any attempt to solve these deep-rooted problems will face hurdles—whether it’s Obamacare, Medicare for All, or something else entirely.

Agreed, BUT eliminating the private insurance system would be a catastrophe.  We need tort reform and quick.  We need to stop the ridiculous imbeciles that flood the ER's with non-urgent issues.  The penalties for not having insurance are not enough to make up the costs for the 100 million on Medicaid, one of the phony promises of Obamacare.  And so on and so on.

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ augustus]

20 minutes ago, caliguy said:

Wait times in universal coverage systems

Data from other nations show that universal coverage does not necessarily result in substantially longer wait times. In fact, there are a variety of circumstances in which the United States’ peer nations have shorter wait times.

The most comprehensive source of international comparative data on health care is the Commonwealth Fund’s “Mirror, Mirror” series, which, in 2017, examined a variety of metrics across 10 European countries and the United States. Four of these metrics were particularly useful for studying wait times.¹³

• Patients reported that they saw a doctor or nurse on the same or next day the last time they sought medical care.
• Doctors reported that patients often experience difficulty getting specialized tests—for example, CT and MRI scans.
• Patients reported that they waited two months or longer for a specialist appointment.
• Patients reported that they waited four months or longer for elective or nonemergency surgery.

On each of these metrics, the United States performed worse than several nations with universal coverage, though no individual nation outperforms the United States on every metric. For example, only 51 percent of U.S. patients reported being able to see a provider within a day, compared with 53 percent, 56 percent, and 67 percent of patients in Germany, France, and Australia, respectively.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly 30 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients have difficulty getting a specialized test, compared with only 11 percent and 15 percent of doctors in Australia and Sweden, respectively.¹⁵ U.S. outcomes on the other two metrics were better across the board but still show that the United States performs worse than other nations with more equitable health care coverage systems. For instance, in the United States, 4 percent of patients reported waiting four months or longer for nonemergency surgery, compared with only 2 percent of French patients and 0 percent of German patients.¹⁶ For specialist appointments, the situation is even worse: 6 percent of U.S. patients reported waiting two months or longer for an appointment, compared with only 4 percent of French patients and 3 percent of German patients.¹⁷

Sorry, that's bogus.  Only 2 per cent of French patients waited 4 or months for nonemergency surgery.  I don't think so.  What kind of cut and paste is that??

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ augustus]

18 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

The profit-driven model of the private sector doesn’t prioritize preventative care.

It actually does.  Many people take advantage of checkups.   Many people don't bother.  That's a personal choice.  

20 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

high administrative costs—about 15-20% of premiums go toward overhead and profits, compared to Medicare’s 2%

Not true, that's a Bernie Sanders argument and PolitiFact determined it was half-true at best.  Obamacare limited insurance company profits.  A big problem with Medicare is that there is massive fraud. as they basically pay out any claim that comes before them.

[+ ApexNomad]

18 minutes ago, augustus said:

It actually does.  Many people take advantage of checkups.   Many people don't bother.  That's a personal choice.  

Not true, that's a Bernie Sanders argument and PolitiFact determined it was half-true at best.  Obamacare limited insurance company profits.  A big problem with Medicare is that there is massive fraud. as they basically pay out any claim that comes before them.

The fact that Medicare’s administrative costs are around 2%, while private insurers spend 15-20% on overhead and profits, isn’t a partisan claim, but a well-documented statistic. The issue here isn’t whether Medicare is perfect, but whether we could improve efficiency and reduce costs in the system by addressing these disparities. Independent research has consistently shown that Medicare operates at a much lower cost than the private sector.

Fraud exists in every system, but comparing Medicare’s fraud issues to the waste and exploitation within the private sector is misleading. Private insurers are notorious for denying claims, overcharging, and hiking premiums—practices that directly harm consumers. (Have you seen the news lately?) While Medicare is not immune to fraud, it has far better oversight and the capacity to address these challenges more effectively than the profit-driven private insurance system. 

The debate here isn’t about whether Medicare is flawless, but whether our current system is serving everyone efficiently. The private sector model has shown that its profit-driven incentives often come at the expense of preventative care and cost containment, leaving many Americans with inadequate care and skyrocketing medical costs.

Healthcare is a fundamental right. Choosing not to seek preventative care is one thing, but ignoring the systemic barriers that prevent many from even having the option of affordable care is another.

Dismissing the systemic inefficiencies in the current model doesn’t solve the problem—it just kicks the can down the road.