Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
Title for CEOs: American economy could lose 40 trillion in profits with the loss of for profit system.
That 40 trillion doesn't disappear though, it just goes to other things. Like when people bitched about NASA's Apollo program budget... That money didn't get tossed in a hole and burned, it was spent on engineering, manufacturing, R&D...etc. The people who got paid bought houses or paid rent, bought food, had families, paid taxes. That program was a stimulus program in disguise, and it worked really well.
Not stimulus in disguise, just simple good governance. The government paying people well and giving them good benefits in order to accomplish things beneficial to the state and citizenry is actually just what the government is supposed to do.
This is the reason we will never have Medicare for all in the current system. Much more likely it and social security will be ended.
thats 40T less profit to he extracted. not gonna win over shareholders with that plan! :)
Cheaper, faster, and would make America's people much stronger. We have tied our arms behind our backs, by relentlessly chasing the dollar...failing to understand that the dollar represents things, but isn't meaningful by itself.
If America got its shit together, it could have remained a genuine superpower. Unfortunately for Americans, our leaders don't give a damn about the nation.
You have to have some control over the prices or they'll just jack up costs to whatever the public can handle. Similar to how colleges just raise prices to whatever gov pell grants will cover.
As I've said before, many people don't care that it's cheaper. They want black people to suffer.
Not just that, but they also want to transfer money from the working class to the “health care” execs, who incidentally have nothing to do with improving people’s health or providing care.
That might be their biggest reason, but they also want other minorities and the poor to suffer too.
As a country, the USA hasn't been near the top twenty in regards to infant mortality in decades. While their rate does improve over time and are now down to 5 deaths in 1,000 births, the black infant mortality is more than double the national average. The black population suffers from rates not seen in the USA since the 1980s, at over 10 deaths in 1,000 births.
I want black people to suffer! ..............as little as possible <3
I've said it online probably 8000 times, but just in case somehow some Americans are still not aware:
You ALREADY pay a higher portion of your tax receipts into your healthcare system than any nation on planet earth, this includes the 30 or so that provide unequivocal full coverage for every one of their citizens from cradle to grave.
Then on top of this you are paying for the privilege of being insured so you can then pay your doctor.
The entire private medical apparatus of the United States is made of completely superfluous money that never had to be spent there at all, tens of billions, trillions of dollars.
Most of the rest of the planet provides far more for far less money. Every modern industrialized nation (and a few not so modern not so industrialized nation's) manage to provide world class healthcare that outstrips the US system in nearly every metric, to all citizens, for free, for ever, without one red cent of payment
I've been paying ~200 a month for "Healthcare" for the past 5 years.
Total benefits paid out... $0 dollars. I went to a Dr. for a pinched nerve in my shoulder. In-person exam, a round of steroids and a prescription for a large dose of acetaminophen ran me about $260 out of pocket, insurance covered exactly 0 dollars.
I've sent them 12,000 dollars and they've fucking nickled-and-dimed me for physical pain that was affecting my health (couldn't sleep or focus for about a week before I relented and saw a Dr.)
BTW, I have what is considered to be "good insurance" in the US.
The vast majority of Americans still don't understand they should be adding all of their health care costs, including the company portion of premiums which cuts into their take home pay, into their comparison to taxes in other countries. A huge portion of American still buy into the 'government death panels' bullshit while ignoring the fact that for profit companies are death panels.
They also don't understand that every other country has better health outcomes and that the stories of long waits are either lies or cherry picked from rural locations and in the US many people never get care or have even longer wait times in rural areas.
Americans are mostly morons who believe anything that makes it sound like the US is better and ignore all the evidence that shows that is wrong.
Source: am American and have talked to many Americans.
They talk about there being lines for stuff all the time without ever fathoming what the lack of lines for things signifies in America.
There is no lack of lines in America. That's something only people that haven't ever actually used any of the healthcare system would believe.
Emergency Rooms regularly have multiple hour long waits for everything other than literal life or death emergencies arriving via ambulance. Urgent care facilities often have similar waits and have to send people to the ER that need more care than they can provide.
This is a result primarily of facilities operating at bare minimum staffing at all times to minimize costs (maximize profits).
I’m sure it’s not lost on anyone that if one suddenly cuts $40 T from arguably corrupt gatekeepers, there will be immense resistance from said gatekeepers.
This isn’t just about cost savings, this kind of move shifts the balance of power built on top of who can afford just basic US medical care. When the US mixed political power with healthcare, the people were always going to be cooked souls (souls) vide.
The gatekeepers should be being literally cut with a guillotine, this is the nice option.
America spends about twice as much of it's GDP in Healthcare than countries with Universal Healtcare whilst having worst outcomes (higher infant mortality, lower life expectation).
Consuming more resources whilst delivering worst results means a system is less efficient, in this case far less efficient.
The real reason for the system for Healthcare in the US to be as it is, is that with 14% of GDP streaming through a private owned Healtcare system, a number of people are able to capture far more of the wealth produced in America than if only 7% of GDP did, and way more than if none of it was streaming through a private owned system.
Also, when Medicare was created in the 1960’s virulent racist senators & congresspersons were opposed to extending federal health insurance to people of color so coverage then was only provided to seniors rather than being universally available
what about elective procedures instead pf nonsense like "life" and "infants"?
The purpose of the study was not to show the truth, which it did under protest.
It was to create pull-quotes that can be turned into sound bites that are given validity because of the name of the institute.
Almost everyone who hears these will never look at the real study, and discount those who point out the conclusion
Sadly
But it wouldn't make those in the upper ranks of monetary value money if we actually provided care.
Won't someone think of the poor billionaires!
I remember when cost was at least a valid part of the debate - when public was projected to cost more than private. But it was still worth it to give healthcare to EVERYONE.
Now, it's just ridiculously cheaper to go univesal, but the fascists don't like it.
Has there ever existed a time when anyone with any actual economic merit thought that private was less costly than public?
I don't remember exactly when the projections flipped, but yes. Something like 20-25 years ago, the public option was projected to cost more. Then it became about the same, and now it's projected to be less.
Weird cause 25 years ago it was still free in the entire industrialized world minus the usa
No it wasn't. It was free to the end user. Or do you think every medical person donated their time and every medicine producer volunteered their time?
What a ridiculous reply.
Free to the end user, that's a rediculous thing to say as well. So if I go get treatment I can stop paying taxes for the rest of my life... Sheesh, sounds great.
Free to end user/free at point of use is exactly how these systems are described by the countries themselves that use them
Only if you have the memory of a goldfish. The context of this conversation was about whether or not private sector medical care in the United States was cheaper or more expensive than public sector medical care.
Neither one of those is free. Things cost money.
It's not that you don't have a point, it's not that you're not correct in some contexts because you are. The problem is what you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation in any way whatsoever.
Have fun in life, lol
Lol, I bet everything I own you're american
Can't keep up with the context of the conversation because neither one of you people understands what the hell we're talking about. Go have your own conversation about stuff. I bet you'll find. I probably agree with 90% of whatever you believe. But none of it has to do with the conversation we're having here
In the interest of pretending you're coming at this in good faith, it should have been very obvious to you in context that I of course meant free at point of use. You suddenly pivoting to assuming I meant healthcare in the developed world was LITERALLY FREE involving thousands of volunteer doctors and drug manufacturers is so obviously absurd that for you to genuinely make that statement means you are either woefully ignorant and uninformed or deliberately making a strawman argument.
You don't seem woefully ignorant to me so I assumed the latter.
My point was, 25 years ago it was still the case that the US was spending more money JUST IN TAXES than Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Australia, NZ, or anyone else that was providing universal coverage. Before even talking about private costs in the USA.
Therefore to me the idea that such a system could possibly be considered cheaper, by any economic reckoning or fuckery whatsoever, doesn't really stand to reason.
As a reminder, 25 years ago was 2001, not like, 1982
Good faith? This all stems from my top level comment, which I will remind was:
I remember when cost was at least a valid part of the debate - when public was projected to cost more than private. But it was still worth it to give healthcare to EVERYONE.
Now, it’s just ridiculously cheaper to go univesal, but the fascists don’t like it.
What part of that makes you think I was ever talking about the cost at the point of service?
And I'm thoroughly aware of the timeframe I was talking about. I'm 51 years old. I became an adult in 1993. I am aware of politics from at least that time (more vaguely aware as a child, but quite aware as an adult).
So I don't know where the hell you got the conversation wrong, but it ain't me. :P
All that aside, a quick thanks for keeping going with it. I have a feeling we're getting close to figuring out where things went wrong. lol. I feel like I haven't made mistakes so far here, but depends on what you reply with, I suppose. It sounds like I was talking the actual total cost, period, for healthcare in the US (because that was the debate and the point I was talking about), not where it costs and who it costs, and it sounds like you were on another page. lol. But we'll see if that makes sense.
lets just start with the fact that I dont think there is any evidence and you certainly havent provided any evidence to support the assertion that private healthcare was cheaper to provide than public healthcare in america 25 years ago.
Maybe that is true, but it stands at odds with the fact that public healthcare everywhere else in the world was still a lot cheaper than the US system was 25 years ago
Let's start with the fact that I was there. It was in the news. I don't think that's anything I need to prove.
I remember when it made news that it became projected to cost less. I was pleased because it made the debate easier.
Believe it or not or look it up yourself.
You say "the news" and "the projection" as if there is some single font of knowledge somewhere dispensing this information. Whatever projections talking heads on the news in corporate America are saying doesn't actually mean much. Ok, some think tank somewhere said in the 90s that you crossed some magic threshold, I don't think that actually carries very much weight here.
If your arguing that happened to you, you're right I can't argue that.
If your arguing that your memory of a second hand account of probably one think tanks report on who knows what constitutes a valid argument that there was a time when private medicine was more cost effective than public; it does not
Wait a second, wasn't I reading a headline worrying that the U.S. is $40 trillion in debt?
Do we sell this by saying we can have another 10 aircraft carriers if we finally have socialized healthcare? We gotta make the healthcare industry fight the military-industrial complex, while they're busy, let's mandate states auto-enroll people to vote with their driver's license.
how bout we slash the defense budget by half even to pay for medicare/caid for all, also includes assitance for snap, low income housing assitance,,,etc.
