Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 47404
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2019/04/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2007/7/24-28 [Health] UID:47404 Activity:moderate
7/24    Wow, universal healthcare is expensive
        \_ It comes to $3000/yr per resident.  That's actually less than
           my health insurance, which is $4200/yr.  I think they should
           build in more incentive to wellness on the part of Wisconsin
           \_ Where did you get the $3000/yr value?  And what do I care about
              "per resident" when it should be "per taxpayer"?
              From the article:
              The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion
              more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and
              corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month
              in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.
              \_ $15.2 billion/population of Wisconsin.  It's actually $2700 or
                 so but I rounded up.  My health insurance costs $450 when
                 all is said and done, so if I were in Wisconsin, it'd be an
                 extra $100/month for me for there to be universal health
                 insurance. (I rounded up again.)  Workers here with families
                 pay $900/month for health insurance (most covered by employer).
                 \_ Of course, government estimates are never wrong.
                 \_ You'd be paying your $4K + the $3K.
                    \_ Maybe, maybe not. You might be able to get the money
                       back from your employer, since his cost will be lower.
                 \_ And why should people without families pay for those who
                    have them?
                    \_ It actually promotes my health not to be surrounded
                       by sick people.
                       \_ So paying for someone else's kid's broken leg from
                          soccer practice makes you healthier?  Okey dokey.
                          \_ No, but paying to control TB for example and for
                             immunizations in general does.
                             \_ You are picking and choosing though.  Paying
                                for 'universal healthcare' means you may be
                                paying for immunizations, but you are also
                                paying for a crapload of other things, many
                                of them misused _because_ they are perceived
                                as 'free.'  -- ilyas
        \_ And it may well not be doing any good. -- ilyas
                                \_ And employer provided health insurance
                                   isn't perceived as "free"?
                                   \_ My point wasn't to argue in favor of the
                                      current form of healthcare over
                                      'universal healthcare' but to try to
                                      shift the debate more towards looking
                                      shift the debate more towards looking at
                                      whether healthcare actually helps people
                                      be healthy. -- ilyas
                                      \- a study just came out comparing
                                         newly eligible medicare patients
                                         showing people who went from no
                                         coverage to covered needed more
                                         "work done" than people with
                                         continuous coverage.
                                         \_ I am not surprised that healthcare
                                            would be of benefit to that segment
                                            of the population.  This isn't the
                                            same as 'overall effects' on the
                                            whole population, of course.
                                              -- ilyas
                                         \_ Send me a link, please. -- ilyas
                                      \_ there are plenty of people without
                                         healthcare in the U.S.; do you think
                                         they're likely to be healthier than
                                         those with healthcare?  I can't
                                         believe I bothered to reply to that
                                         absurdity.  -tom
                                         \_ Feel free to actually read the
                                            study I linked (twice now I think)
                                            rather than acting like an ass.
                                            The claim is that while healthcare
                                            has a positive effect (obviously),
                                            this effect is mostly negated by
                                            negative effects (with some
                                            exceptions, for instance optometry
                                            is generally clearly beneficial).
                                            My untutored intuition would say
                                            that healthcare would have a
                                            positive effect, but a very
                                            inefficient one given the amount
                                            of spending.  That there might be
                                            no effect is something I think is
                                            pretty scandalous.  -- ilyas
                                            \_ I am LEWIS@SODA.  I am offering
                                               to teach you about Partial
                                               Derivatives, if you would like
                                               to learn about these wonderous
                                               \_ I think I understand what
                                                  an effect is and what it
                                                  isn't pretty well.  -- ilyas
                                            pretty scandalous.  Your example
                                            isn't as obvious as you might
                                            think -- are you controlling
                                            for race, wealth, etc?  What should
                                            you control for?  What shouldn't
                                            you control for?  -- ilyas
                                            \_ I'm going to control for
                                               ilyas being a moron by
                                               stepping out of this
                                               conversation.  -tom
                                               \_ So, ausman, to go back to our
                                                  earlier discussion: this is
                                                  apparently the best place
                                                  on the internet you could
                                                  find for general discussion?
                                                  I brought up this study
                                                  repeatedly, because I think
                                                  its conclusions are
                                                  somewhat counterintuitive
                                                  (they certainly are to me).
                                                  But the extent of discussion
                                                  so far has been either to
                                                  ignore it or ridicule it.
                                                  Compare to how this study
                                                  was discussed on
                                                  overcomingbias, for example.
                                                    -- ilyas
                                                  ignore it or ridicule me for
                                                  bringing it up.  Compare to
                                                  how this study was discussed
                                                  on overcomingbias, for
                                                  example.  -- ilyas
2019/04/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2011/11/10-30 [Health] UID:54220 Activity:nil
11/10   What's the best way to get medical leave (how do I find
        a doctor who is willing to help you in any way)?
        \_ Do you have a good relationship with your personal physician?
           If not, do you know any physicians as friends or family friends?
           That would be a good place to start.
           \_ Crap, no I don't. Ok, is there another way?
2011/9/16-10/25 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Health/Disease/General] UID:54175 Activity:nil
9/16    "Chinese condoms too small for South Africans: report" (
        "A South African court has blocked the government from buying 11
        million Chinese condoms, saying they are too small, a newspaper
        reported Friday."
        What an embarrassment.
2011/4/26-7/13 [Computer/Theory, Health/Women] UID:54095 Activity:nil
4/26    Is it correct to say that Godel's work on the incompleteness thm
        proved the Principia Mathematica wrong?
        \_ It didn't exactly prove it wrong; it proved that the true goal of
           PM (a complete and consistent set of mathematical truths)
           is unattainable.  -tom
           \_ Ah cool, no this is good. See ok yeah so the main goal of PM
Cache (3008 bytes)
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 am EDT When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care. This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips RJ Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby. As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 15 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee. The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan. Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. The last line of defense against this plan are the Republicans who run the Wisconsin House. So far they've been unified and they recently voted the Senate plan down. Democrats are now planning to take their ideas to the voters in legislative races next year, and that's a debate Wisconsinites should look forward to. At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care.