1. The official Sherdog Store is back! Check it out! » Discuss it here! »
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

NYT Upshot: "No, Giving More People Health Insurance Doesnt Save Money"

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by hsl, Aug 6, 2015.

  1. hsl Green Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/upshot/no-giving-more-people-health-insurance-doesnt-save-money.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&abt=0002&abg=1


    Excerpts from the article:

    tl dr; Does universal health insurance save money? No, but it's good for people's health
     
  2. FierceRedBelt Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    Location:
    United States
    Ah compelling non-argument of the week, it's too expensive to test everyone just to save 1 in 100. Of course we should test everyone it's our duty as members of the human race.

    I do appreciate honest cost analysis to shut up the people who try to use poor arguments to justify an obvious moral standing.
     
  3. Dayman1984 Purple Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,841
    Likes Received:
    12
    To me the universal healthcare concept is more about being humane than cost saving. That's why it is heavily subsidized by tax money in countries where it is in place (Sweden, Denmark, England, etc.) It costs money to take care of sick people.
     
  4. djacobox372 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    23,670
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    I'm pro national healthcare and think Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

    But the whole "early treatment saves money" is hogwash.

    Take cancer for example: if you catch it early you treat it (at great expense), it goes away, then it will most often come back, and you treat it again (at great expense), this goes on and on until the patient eventually dies from cancer.

    If you catch it late, the patient dies and you save a lot of money.

    What sickens me is that somehow whether something is cheaper or not is somehow the most important measure in whether it's worth doing. As if capitalism is somehow the most important thing, even more important the quality human life.
     
  5. OldGoat Red Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it's not.
     
  6. Cubo de Sangre President of the War Room

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    47,973
    Likes Received:
    7,261
    Location:
    Hell
    Insurance doesn't drive down prices?
     
  7. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    78,525
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Yeah. I thought that more early treatment would save money, but it doesn't look like it is (and I think your analysis is correct). We're still saving money in a lot of other ways (without sacrificing quality) and more people have access to affordable care so I'm happy.
     
  8. James Keith Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    10,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego
    All 7 billion of them?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.