Marcellus + 2017   21

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World
Treatments that cost $200,000 per year are used to extend average life expectancy by 3–4 months in stage 4 cancers. Of course it's worth it for the minority of patients who are put into long term remission. But it doesn't help the others.

---------------
So with all of that said, yes, America has among the best cancer survival statistics because of an incredible abundance of high technology equipment and drugs, more extensive screening, and more aggressive treatment.

America also in general has better survival statistics when cancers are compared stage for stage. Of course there are exceptions. Japan survival statistics for stomach cancer are much better than American numbers.

Very expensive cancer treatments such as the new immunotherapies for cancer are more widely available in America than in countries with national healthcare where there are restrictions based on cost/benefit and budget caps.

The larger question is whether a society can afford to spend what America spends to get low single digit improvement in cure rates and and to prolong survival by a few months especially at the end of life.

Treatments that cost $200,000 per year are used to extend average life expectancy by 3–4 months in stage 4 cancers. Of course it's worth it for the minority of patients who are put into long term remission. But it doesn't help the others.
grade_A  grade_AA  grade_AAA  healthcare  health  health_insurance  cancer  us  USA  2017 
4 weeks ago by Marcellus
Uber Charged This Rider $18,500 For A 20 Minute Ride
But Twitter user JTM, a data scientist from Paris, doesn't think that's going to happen. They're far more concerned about how this decision will impact new Internet businesses just starting out. Facebook and Google already make enough money to eat the cost themselves, but what about the little guy? 
net_neutrality  grade_A  2017  Trump  corruption  internet 
december 2017 by Marcellus
Why Cede the Flag to Donald Trump? - The Atlantic
Nobody will dispute that all Americans, including football players of course, have a right to do whatever they please during the anthem: kneel, sit, or stare dazedly into space—the latter being Trump’s own preferred stance during the ritual. But people exercising their rights in spectacularly televised ways would be wise to consider their actions carefully. What are they communicating? What are they accomplishing?
TheAtlantic  David_Frum  NFL  patriotism  Trump  2017  wedgeissue 
september 2017 by Marcellus
Bernie Sanders' last 'Medicare for all' plan cost nearly $1.4 trillion - Sep. 12, 2017
Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill would reduce the nation's total spending on health care by $6 trillion over a decade.

The average American family would save between $5,800 to $7,000 in premiums and deductibles. Employers would also save between $9,400 and $12,600 over what they currently contribute towards the private health care premiums. 

For example, a family earning $50,000 would pay $1,100 for their health care (in the form of taxes) versus $6,900 to $8,100 they currently spend on average. An employer would only pay $3,350 in payroll taxes on their behalf.

Yes, that’s technically an increase in taxes. But that's only because it changes who you write your check for health care coverage. The average family would essentially see their net take-home income jump by between $5,800 to $7,000, on average.

What it covers:

Under the 'Medicare for all' initiative, Americans would have comprehensive coverage, which would include doctors' visits, hospital stays, preventative care, mental health services and prescription drugs.

It would also pay for vision, dental, long-term care and hospice needs. All doctors would be in network.

And patients would no longer have to pay private insurance premiums, deductibles or co-pays.



And if you aren’t satisfied with the basic coverage, you can always buy supplementary private insurance (as is already the case throughout the rest of the advanced world.)

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/16/news/economy/sanders-health-care-taxes/index.html?iid=EL

___________________________________

Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill calls for a new 2.2% income tax on incomes under $250,000. Incomes over $600,000 would pay $18,700, plus 5.2% of earnings above that threshold. Married couples with incomes above $1 million would have a 5.4% surcharge.

Employers would also save money. The plan replaces their current contributions towards insurance premiums with a 6.2% levy.

For example, a family earning $50,000 would pay $1,100 in income tax for their health care premiums and their employer would pay $3,350 in payroll taxes on their behalf. So yes, that's technically an increase in taxes.

But that family would enjoy a net savings of between $5,800 to $7,000 in premiums and deductibles. Their employer would also save between $9,400 and $12,600 over what it used to contribute towards the private health care premiums.

To be clear, this means that although the family's taxes would technically go up (which sounds bad), the family would actually enjoy net windfall of between $5,800 to $7,000 in take home pay.

In total, Sanders' plan could reduce the nation's total spending on health care by $6 trillion over a decade.

What it covers:

Under the 'Medicare for all' initiative, Americans would have comprehensive coverage, which would include doctors' visits, hospital stays, preventative care, mental health services and prescription drugs.

It would also pay for vision, dental, long-term care and hospice needs. All doctors would be in network.

And patients would no longer have to pay private insurance premiums, deductibles or co-pays.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/16/news/economy/sanders-health-care-taxes/index.html?iid=EL

___________________________________
did not post
On a personal note, I have a very wealthy friend who sought out one of the best surgeons for a particular type of heart surgery. The doctor and/or hospital was out of his network, so his out of pocket expenses were massive. He could afford it, but the costs were far beyond the average family's ability to pay.

My father has Medicare and no supplemental insurance. As luck would have it, he had the same top surgeon and received the exact same surgery at the same top hospital... for free.

Obviously that's just one example.
___________________________________



Net spending on heath care (private and public) would go down, not up.

The US *currently* spends about $3 trillion a year on healthcare or about $30 trillion over 10 years. That works out to about ~$10,000 per person.

About 10% of Americans do no have health insurance. Even at the current (mostly private) rate $10,000 per person, covering the remaining 10% of Americans would raise total healthcare spending by 10%, i.e. from $30 trillion to $33 trillion over 10 years.

But that's a net increase of $3 trillion over 10 years, not $33 trillion. It obviously would not cost double our current spending rate to insure the remaining 10%.

Here's the confusing part that opponents of the plan like to misrepresent to scare people with huge, out of context numbers.

Yes, technically *government* spending would increase dramatically. But that's not new spending, it's just shifting labels based on who is writing the checks.

Example: to keep the math math simple, let's pretend that 100% of all health insurance in America comes from private insurers and that after Sanders' plan, 100% would come from the government.

In that example, a ‘Medicare for All’ plan would shift $33 trillion dollars in spending from the private sector to the government. Thus technically *government* spending would increase by $33 trillion over 10 years. But *private* spending on health care would also go down by the same $33 trillion. The difference is no net change in total spending.

In that example, your private health insurance “premiums” become “taxes” and the money the private health insurers spend is now being spent by the government. So yes, taxes and spending go up, but the net difference in cost and spending is zero.

Back to reality, the point of 'Medicare for All' is that government managed health insurance would be much cheaper because everyone would be forced to buy in and because the government has more leverage to negotiate lower costs for goods and services than private insurance companies.

The estimated cost of ‘Medicare for All’ is about $6,000 per person vs. ~$10,000 per person under our mostly private system.

A rough back of the envelop look at the costs: government health care costs about $1 trillion/year ($10 trillion over 10 years) and private insurance companies cost about $2 trillion/year ($20 trillion over 10 years).

That $20 trillion in private insurance costs would become $12 billion (net savings of about $8 trillion over 10 years).

Thus the $33 trillion in spending over 10 years would reduce to about $25 trillion over 10 years. (Again, that’s just a very rough estimate for illustrative purposes)

——————


Sanders' plan would simply shift the spending from private insurers to the government. Technically, yes, government spending would go up. But net spending would go down, as the estimated costs of Medicare for all is just under ~$6,000 per person vs. the current ~$10,000 per person through (mostly) private insurance.

Yes, technically *government* spending on health care would go up.

that's only because current spending on health care would shift from private insurance companies to the government.

as premium checks that formerly went to private companies would be collected and spend by the government as new taxes and new spending.

Even if kept paying the same high, ~$10,000 per capita cost for health care under Medicare for all, it would only cost 10% more than our current spending levels to cover the remaining 10%, i.e. $33 trillion over 10 years.

What Medicare for all would do would be to shift who we write the checks to for coverage. Instead of spending ~$10,000 per person for private insurance, people would spend ~$6,000 per person for coverage under Medicare.

Yes, government spending would go up because the money would be collected and spent by the government. But the net total cost on health care spending (and the net out of pocket costs for the average American) would drop considerably.
Bernie_Sanders  Medicare  healthcare  health_insurance  2017  grade_A  grade_AA  grade_AAA 
september 2017 by Marcellus
Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Latest Scandal: A Case for Impeachment?
So, why have there been no arrests with all the mounting evidence against Awan and his family for multiple criminal activities in and outside of Congress?
Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz  corruption  grade_A  grade_AA  Democrats  DNC  Hillary_Clinton  election2016  Trump  2017  Politics 
june 2017 by Marcellus
Some Republicans are discussing their plans for President Clinton — starting with impeachment - The Washington Post
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a current member of the Oversight panel, called the impeachment talk “reprehensible, reckless and un-American” and called it part of a two-decade GOP campaign to undermine Democratic presidents. But he said the failure of the 1998 Bill Clinton impeachment and President Obama’s current popularity shows that perpetual opposition isn’t necessarily good politics.
GOP  hypocrisy  2017  treason  Hillary_Clinton  impeachment 
may 2017 by Marcellus
Why Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Invited to CAP’s Ideas Conference | The Nation
In the battle over ideas in the Democratic party, it's clear the moderates aren't getting much quarter. This was on display at the "Ideas Conference" held Tuesday by the Center for American Progress, the central policy and personnel clearinghouse for Democratic administrations. Just before the event, the think tank released "A Marshall Plan for America"—an ambitious jobs guarantee via "a large-scale, permanent program of public employment and infrastructure investment."

But there was an awkward absence: Senator Bernie Sanders. He was not invited to the "Ideas Conference," and his exclusion makes clear that while Democrats are converging around a general set of ideological principles, the party still faces some serious coalition-building problems.
Bernie_Sanders  DNC  corruption  2017  Politics  progressive  grade_A 
may 2017 by Marcellus
White Nationalist Leads Torch-Bearing Protesters Against Removal of Confederate Statue - NBC News
"No one knows how devastating this is for family to see on video and being reminded over and over in social media," McLemore's family said in a statement.
neonazis  Trump  fascism  2017 
may 2017 by Marcellus
The GOP Will Tell Lie After Lie to Pass Trumpcare | The Nation
Republicans are lying so flagrantly because they know they're doing something awful, and it looks that way even to their own voters.
Obamacare  healthcare  health_insurance  GOP  corruption  lies  Trump  2017  grade_A 
may 2017 by Marcellus
A New Harvard Study Just Shattered the Biggest Myth About Bernie Supporters
“Nevada is an opportunity to fight back on so many levels,” Perez wrote. “First, the current storyline is that she does not connect well with young voters. Given that Nevada is far more demographically representative of America, I am confident that HRC can do well with all African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans (don’t forget the sizeable[sic] population of Asian Americans in Nevada, including Filipinos.).”
Bernie_Sanders  2017  Politics  race  Democrats  grade_A 
april 2017 by Marcellus

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: