United Healthcare CEO killed

[caliguy]

5 hours ago, augustus said:

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.

Simple. Medicare for all.  

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by caliguy

[Luv2play]

5 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.

You’re confusing system with healthcare science. The US system is widely considered the least efficient and effective in the G7 and other developed countries. Effective as in outcomes.

The health sciences in the US are excellent and many advances are pioneered in the US. Unfortunately they are only available to those who can afford them, either through insurance or wealth. 

[CuriousByNature]

If Mangione was a balding guy in his 50s with a pot belly, the public reaction to his crimes would likely be different.  We live in a society that is increasingly shallow and fickle.  An individual's character means less now than ever before.  Superficial attractiveness wins the day because our brains have been conditioned to value outward beauty above everything else.  We rely on social media as an arbiter of right and wrong and we are influenced by people we will never meet or get to know in a genuine way.  Society now forms its opinions from sound bites and 30-second online clips that get posted by strangers half a world away.  It's ridiculous and a very sad comment on the direction we are going.

[+ augustus]

17 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

The health sciences in the US are excellent and many advances are pioneered in the US. Unfortunately they are only available to those who can afford them, either through insurance or wealth. 

Absolute nonsense.  A person on Medicaid can get the same treatments as a billionaire.

[+ augustus]

45 minutes ago, caliguy said:

Simple. Medicare for all.

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.......

Edited December 15, 2024 by augustus

[+ 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

[Vin Marco]

5 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!

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

[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.

[Vin Marco]

5 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

It's a symbiotic relationship.

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 Vin Marco

[+ 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