Sure but do you think the general public actually knows what the ACA does?
See my edit above...graph was for public health spending, not overall spending. this graph is from the link provided. Looking at spending as a percentage of GDP it went up since ACA after being flat in the few years prior.
But then it’s flat again for several years. Even slopes down a little. Clearly the ACA didn’t rein in health care costs much if at all, and I’m not even really trying to argue it did any of the things it was supposed to. But I’m just not seeing this runaway explosion in spending after the ACA that you guys keep talking about. The charts just don’t support that conclusion at all.
I don't think the ACA is the primary issue with runaway spending of our government, but I don't see much good and a lot of downside consequences. Note that chart shows and additional 2% of the GDP being spent on healthcare since the ACA. That's actually a pretty massive increase in real $ not really appreciated in the slope of the chart.
Isn't it illegal to practice medicine privately in Canada? That's not gonna work here.
Definitely a fan of states being in charge. Most federal programs are too big to succeed, IMO. I concede this will lead to some terrible programs. Despite my libertarian leanings, I believe a basic Medicaid model for routine OV, screening and routine care would be a more efficient system than our current lack of basic care for some of the most vulnerable, who create/become a much bigger societal drag. An ounce of prevention…
I think the root cause of all this is the American mindset that healthcare MUST be equitable. That is, it's unethical for there to be any financial incentive to provide better, more expedient, more advanced care for more money. All the government and insurance payers forbid it.
The general public loves Obamacare? Uh huh…show me the study. Or are you speaking out of your ass
show me a more popular government program
www.kff.org
very arbitrary. you need to back them up.
www.brookings.edu
You have a strange definition of “tremendous” because IMO “7%” does not really fit that bill.
7% absolutely does fit that bill
not sure where you are getting 7%...
Your metric for success appears to be the propagation of the greatest scam and drain on the American healthcare system - health insurance.very arbitrary. you need to back them up.
the number of insured people have gone up tremendously.
Uninsurance rates have fallen significantly following the Affordable Care Act
Wendell Primus and co-authors analyze increases in coverage following the ACA and describe further policies that would lower uninsurance.
Yes, you totally get it! You and ssdoc weren't completely duped into conflating the insurance company definition of "covered" with actual healthcare. Thank god you saved the American healthcare system!
You wouldn’t take home 25% less, you’d take home 75% less with socialized medicine. It’s why I can’t begin to understand why an intelligent physician would also be a democrat.
Supporting the Democratic Party is signing up for the destruction of your ability to support your family!
Doctor Pay by Country 2025
Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.worldpopulationreview.com
Check out doctor salaries in the largest economies of the EU, Germany, France, England etc.
That’s a lot more than I’d make in private practice in the US seeing only 16/day.
Interesting. Are there other payers like private insurance?
tell me you dont know about canadian healthcare without saying so.....
17k deductible is painful.
I'm surprised it's not more tbh. But totally agree that's insanely expensive for what you actually get. Great business model for BCBS though.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
opt out of medicare or opt out of medicaid? no state would be willing to opt out of medicaid
Opt out of both, instead accept dollar equivalent from fed. Use that money to build a superior system state wide.
a good idea, but impossible from a practical and legal standpoint
Everything is impossible with that attitude
typical libertarian.
Those people move out of state. The underinsured/poor and the elderly without a tax base go elsewhere.
The federal govt offers states the option of accepting block grants instead of Medicare/Medicaid for it's residents. If a state accepts, they must develop and prepose a plan that ensures Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries will be able to access some level of care in their state. Once accepted, a 1-3 year ramp up plan is initiated. During implementation, if the system fails to provide a minimal threshold, the money spigot is turned off and the original programs are reinstituted.
is the goal to reduce overall costs? improve access?
The goal is to allow states to try out systems that may be superior to our current system in terms of access to care, cost efficiency, and most importantly, sustainability.
states could theoretically have more control at a local level, but unless you are going to ration care, reduce payments, curb drug and device costs, get rid of private insurance, i cant see how the outcomes and cost would be any different.
I would love to try a VA type system. At the same time, for private care, I would like to make a state law that requires everyone pay the same price for a service. IOW, insurance companies can't negotiate the price lower than cash paying patients. I think they're using their leverage unfairly. I would try to expand HSAs.
so then you would eliminate SOS (d)?
Emphasis added. lots of cost savings there.
For the gov system, it wouldn't apply bc there's no "payer". Care is delivered internally without any 3rd party.
How about private imaging, like MRI?
