Dear USA, No Other Country Does This (Healthcare)

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,940]

I would like to point out that while Germany pays for the health insurance of the unemployed, there is also still private health insurance for those who are eligible and can afford it. It's not all equal, but it's a better system than what the U.S. has

[ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY 6,283]

5 minutes ago, Timmers said:

Competing about death numbers has nothing to do with the OP. I was just responding to that person's awkward AF comment.

And that’s exactly what my comment was referencing 

[Antoni 5,332]

6 minutes ago, JRCF29 said:

Because of a... pandemic? but I thought the pandemic wasn't related

It wasn't about the pandemic.

You made it about the pandemic, so I debated on your level, and now you're going to come back at me with my own argument.

I have presented many points and tried to be kind in exchanging ideas with you, but you haven't given a response to any of my points. I'm not sure why you're still trying to defend your viewpoint if you don't have anything to actually contribute. This will be my last response to our conversation. 

[Maleficent 6]

A single-payer system is not the utopia this very ill-informed video portrays. 

I'm a dual Canadian-American Citizen, and I have firsthand seen how awful it can be. Long wait times, uncertainty on how good the treatment you are getting, many hopes to jump through. In Canada, if you have a rash, you must first go to your GP, you must get referred to a specialist, then you must wait in line until the dermatologist can see you. Meanwhile, since it is not an "emergency", you will continue to live in embarrassment/irritation. And that's in a country with only about 30 million people. 

Imagine that system trying to treat close to 400 million people. 

9 minutes ago, Timmers said:

The video argues that it's bad that 22 million people are out of work right now and that most of them don't have health insurance since they are out of work.

They are out of work because of a pandemic. Their health insurance will come back as soon as the furloughs are over. 

Now why is health insurance tied to employment? 

In a health insurance market where one price is charged for all buyers, the healthiest people do not find health insurance to be a good deal, because on average they end up subsidizing the sickest. Therefore, many of them simply don't buy insurance, or buy bare-bones plans. The price then rises, because the insurance pool is less healthy on average, and that induces even more people to drop out. In some situations, this can mean a "death spiral" killing the entire market. Or, it leads insurers to exclude pre-existing conditions. Or, rates are just insanely high and only very sick people buy insurance. One solution to this is group insurance. An employer forces all of its employees to buy insurance. Since the healthiest can't opt out, the "death spiral" doesn't start, and insurance premiums remain relatively low for the employees.

Now imagine if you had a single-payer system. The sickest people would benefit, while the average healthy person would see very little benefit (if any at all), while paying more taxes for a service they do not need. The upper classes would begin to grow restless of seeing 40%+ of their income going to healthcare they do not use, and you would see tax loopholes, fraud, and laundering become more and more common (as it is in Canada). 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,563]

48 minutes ago, Timmers said:

 

The majority of Americans don’t like this, and support M4A, so this isn’t an opinion issue. It’s a leadership issue. They were just too scared to vote for what’s right.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,940]

3 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

I'm a dual Canadian-American Citizen, and I have firsthand seen how awful it can be. Long wait times, uncertainty on how good the treatment you are getting, many hopes to jump through. In Canada, if you have a rash, you must first go to your GP, you must get referred to a specialist, then you must wait in line until the dermatologist can see you. Meanwhile, since it is not an "emergency", you will continue to live in embarrassment/irritation. And that's in a country with only about 30 million people. 

Imagine that system trying to treat close to 400 million people. 

I don't know much about what I've cut out from your quote, but I do have some thoughts/considerations for these parts. Firstly, I've heard that some insurances refuse to pay for visits to specialists without PCP referral. Secondly, while the 30m to 400m people system would be a large scale, does the number of doctors not keep up?

[Maleficent 6]

1 minute ago, justhislife said:

I don't know much about what I've cut out from your quote, but I do have some thoughts/considerations for these parts. Firstly, I've heard that some insurances refuse to pay for visits to specialists without PCP referral. Secondly, while the 30m to 400m people system would be a large scale, does the number of doctors not keep up?

Some insurances do indeed refuse to pay for specialist visits without a PCP referral, but in the US, you can still whip out your own credit card and visit the specialist anyways (you cannot in Canada, unless it is an aesthetic reason). 

The issue isn't the raw number of doctors, its the spread of doctors across the regions. While there is 1 podiatrist for every 100 people in Canada, a lot fo them are in major cities; and rural areas and smaller cities are left without. 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,940]

1 minute ago, Maleficent said:

Some insurances do indeed refuse to pay for specialist visits without a PCP referral, but in the US, you can still whip out your own credit card and visit the specialist anyways (you cannot in Canada, unless it is an aesthetic reason). 

The issue isn't the raw number of doctors, its the spread of doctors across the regions. While there is 1 podiatrist for every 100 people in Canada, a lot fo them are in major cities; and rural areas and smaller cities are left without. 

I see. I guess in a way it's good that they can pay for it themselves, but on the other hand it's gonna be a pretty select number of people that can take that route.

[JRCF29 8,230]

Just now, justhislife said:

I see. I guess in a way it's good that they can pay for it themselves, but on the other hand it's gonna be a pretty select number of people that can take that route.

But they should at least have that option, right?

[Maleficent 6]

2 minutes ago, justhislife said:

I see. I guess in a way it's good that they can pay for it themselves, but on the other hand it's gonna be a pretty select number of people that can take that route.

without insurance, the average cost of seeing a specialist is between 300-600$. The average American has $175k in savings as of June 2018. It shouldn't be a "select few" if the majority of Americans are finically literate. 

[MikelAS 239]

 

9 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

The average American has $175k in savings as of June 2018. It shouldn't be a "select few" if the majority of Americans are finically literate. 

 

I'm sorry, but what?  Please provide your source, because this is utterly false. 

[Seeka 12,372]

21 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

without insurance, the average cost of seeing a specialist is between 300-600$. The average American has $175k in savings as of June 2018. It shouldn't be a "select few" if the majority of Americans are finically literate. 

I would adore the source of this please. Because I don't know any damn one who isn't financially struggling, and they're in the middle class. I also don't know anyone who could afford to do anything besides urgent care. 

[Maleficent 6]

1 minute ago, Seeka said:

I would adore the source of this please. Because I don't know any damn one who isn't financially struggling, and they're in the middle class. I also don't know anyone who could afford to do anything besides urgent care. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/heres-how-much-money-americans-have-in-savings-at-every-income-level.html

https://www.hrbsolutionsinc.com/how-much-does-a-doctor-visit-cost/

[Maleficent 6]

13 minutes ago, MikelAS said:

 

 

I'm sorry, but what?  Please provide your source, because this is utterly false. 

above

[MikelAS 239]

1 minute ago, Maleficent said:

above

“Although the average American household has saved roughly $175,000 in various types of savings accounts, only the top 10 percent to 20 percent of earners will likely have savings levels approaching or exceeding that amount,” MagnifyMoney reports.Sep 27, 2018"

It's more accurate to use the median amount, which is only $11,700. Your "average" is skewed by billionaires and billionaires who have millions & billions saved up. The average American is living paycheck to paycheck.