81% of the people born in 1953 were alive in 2018.
1-2% don’t make it to their 18th birthday.
So only 18-19% of people pay into Medicare and then don’t live to 65 to get the benefit.
The vast majority of the cost is paid by people who get the benefit. Its not really true to state that medicare is paid for by dead people.
I had the opportunity to experience single payer in Costa Rica, albeit not a developed country. Yes, the system works but the strain is enormous leading to long waiting times for surgeries and other procedures. If you have gallbladders stones, for instance, you might have to wait for a year to get surgery despite the condition being very painful and even dangerous. Not surprisingly, there are private hospitals where those with sufficient money go to get treatment. The doctors in those private hospitals also work for the public health system. The same will happen here: if you have money, you won’t have to wait… for a price you’ll get service right away in the private sector that will inevitably develop.
Costa Rica is a poor nation compared to the US.
US healthcare spending per capita is almost equal to Costa Rica’s GDP per capital.
Yes, Costa Rica IS a poor, developing country, as I said. They support their system by taxing 6% across the board from all employees’ wages plus an additional 6% from the employers.
…until they outlaw private health care services. Which almost seems inevitable, since the whole concept that money can buy you faster/better treatment is heresy these days, and everyone is entitled to the same quality of care regardless of means.
I certainly dread that prospect. I believe there should be a safety net for people who can’t work, are disabled, etc. However, the idea of having everything in the hands of the government is counterproductive.
Once the working people realize the real price of single payer healthcare, they’ll reject it. Going back to the Costa Rican example, they’re paying the equivalent of 12% wages (6% employee, 6% employer) into this system that works but not very well. I speculate the percentages here will be far higher.
Long waiting lines are also available in Canada and GB. In GB, you can at least jump the line by paying for private insurance. In Canada, technically you can only jump the line by going to another country.
That was the current state of things in Canada at least through the first decade of this century. One of the companies that did onsite health screenings (before it became such a racket) was invited by some company into Ontario and the provincial govt promptly said that it would be illegal, because the service was fee based. I suspect their main concern was that the medical system would get stressed by people waving test results wanting treatment.
Beyond overdue for anyone in the US to have health care. Stop funding worthless projects like space telescopes, and put that brain trust on solving the equation
I think you mean “[b]eyond overdue for anyone in the US not to have health care insurance.”
If so, NASA’s annual budget is about $20 billion and dropping (for all of its projects). Medicare for all will cost at least $2-3 trillion per year.
Thanks for your insights
It would seem you misread …I was never close to saying “space vs healthcare”
Webb at 10B is but a fractional component of what is needed
And yes waste will have to be purged at all levels
People need care its simple and long overdue
For that to happen things need to drastically change
Here’s another example ala the VA of a US government-run free healthcare system. You pay with your money or you pay with your life.
Just confirms that the free aspect of any service is not the only one that matters if it happens to be underfunded and mismanaged. It’s definitely a worrying example of government-run healthcare in this country but also just another example of getting what you pay for.
Its really more another example of our nation’s centuries long history of mistreating and neglecting the native population. The Indian Health service is grossly underfunded. They get half the budget of Medicaid.
Another comparison of the free market successes vs rationed care that lets you die cheaply. US cancer survival rates are meaningfully better than those in UK, due to expensive new treatments available here and often not via NHS. Excerpts below.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-you-want-to-get-cancer-11578615274
More Americans are also being diagnosed with cancer at earlier stages thanks to better tests and screening, increasing the odds of survival. The five-year survival rate is now 98% for prostate cancer, 92% for melanoma and 90% for breast cancer. Between 2013 and 2017, the death rate for men with melanoma declined by a stunning 7.6% annually. Screening and treatment improvements also helped reduce the death rate for breast cancer by an average of 1.5% annually from 2008 to 2017.
Breakthrough therapies that harness a victim’s immune system have also increased survival rates by multiples over traditional treatments such as chemotherapy. That’s especially true for cancers with low survival rates such as metastatic melanoma and lung cancer.
But the drugs require enormous investment and therefore aren’t cheap once they’re approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has rejected immunotherapies because they were too expensive, though it has had to relent in some cases after patient protests.
Such government rationing and price controls on drugs are one major reason that countries with socialized medicine like the United Kingdom have lower cancer survival rates than the U.S. The age-adjusted cancer mortality rate is about 20% higher in the U.K and 10% higher in Canada and France than in the U.S. Survival rates for hard-to-treat cancers are also higher in the U.S. than in most countries with nationalized health systems.
According to a study in the journal Lancet last year, an individual diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2010 and 2014 had nearly twice the likelihood of surviving five years in the U.S. than in the U.K. The five-year survival rate for brain cancer in the U.S. is 36.5% compared to 27.2% in France and 26.3% in the U.K. For stomach cancer the five-year survival rate is 33.1% in the U.S. compared to 26.7% in France and 20.7% in the U.K.
But at least poor people will be getting the same access to care as rich people. That’s all that really matters.
Another reminder of what you get for paying all those taxes for “free healthcare” - a spot on a multi-year wait list.
Canada’s single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That’s an all-time record. Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank.
Lengthy treatment delays are the norm in Canada and other single-payer nations, which ration care to keep costs down… The only thing Canadian patients are “guaranteed” is a spot on a waitlist… All told, nearly 3% of Canada’s population was waiting for some kind of medical care at the end of last year.
Those delays were excruciatingly long. After receiving a referral from a general practitioner, the typical patient waited more than 21 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. That was the longest average waiting period on record – and more than double the median wait in 1993… In the United States, suffering for a year or more before receiving a joint replacement is unheard of. In Canada, it’s normal.
Canadians lose a lot of money waiting for their “free” socialized medicine. On average, patients forfeit over $1,800 in lost wages. And that’s only counting the working hours they miss due to pain and immobility.
It’s not just Canada either. UK isn’t great either with their NHS.
Canada isn’t an anomaly. Every nation that offers government-funded, universal coverage features long wait times. When the government makes health care “free,” consumers’ demand for medical services surges. Patients have no incentive to limit their doctor visits or choose more cost-efficient providers. To prevent expenses from ballooning, the government sets strict budget caps that only enable hospitals to hire a limited number of staff and purchase a meager amount of equipment. Demand inevitably outstrips supply. Shortages result.
But you’re missing the point - Everyone will be beneficiaries of this waitlist, which is why it’s a good thing. It isnt about healthcare for everyone, it’s the elimination of the “haves” and the “have nots” so that everyone has equal standing when it comes to access and quality of care. If everyone has to suffer for a year before being treated, at least it’s a fair system. And thus, an improvement.
They’ve tried pushing the “have nots” into that glorious private health insurance the “haves” benefit from, and that hasnt worked out so well. So the next solution is eliminate it all and force everyone to instead live with the lowest common denominator.
Be careful. You might bite your tongue by putting it that far into your cheek. 
I hate when people that were born into poor families get access to the same care I have, being born into a solid middle-class family. Obviously I’m better than they are and deserve to have it while they do not. Why is this even a discussion?
Are we just gonna bump this thread every month with a horror story about how every other form of medicine is awful except the glorious American version ?
