Sweden has a population of ten million. It had just under 6000 Covid-related deaths to date. If Germany, population 83 million, had the same death rate as Sweden it would have around 50,000 Covid-related deaths. Instead it has just above 10,000 civid-related deaths to date.

To think that the Swedish approach would have worked elsewhere is a bit optimistic, I'm afraid. Sweden doubled their ICU-bed capacity during the first wave when deciding not to lock down. 80% of those beds were occupied at the peak earlier this year. That means the health system would have been overwhelmed had they not drastically increased ICU-bed availability.

Also: Everyone has access to "free" quality healthcare in Sweden. Not the case in the U.S. In Sweden veryone gets their salary paid even if they are absent form work due to symptoms. Not the case in the U.S.

I think you cannot just pick one aspect you like about a country's response without considering the relevant circumstances such as described above.

In the U.S. the uninsured without sick pay will continue to go to work at the meatpacking plant and spread the virus. In Sweden that's not the case.

Some people here in Germany say the same thing, that we should have done like Sweden. But Germany is ten times more densely populated and Sweden already has a five times higher death rate.

To those who say the lockdowns in Europe had no effect. That is wrong. They had the deselect effect at the time, then they were rightfully lifted and now, after the summer, cases are on the rise again. Makes sense with people spending more time indoors now compared to the summer.

I think we will see that the latest (partial) lockdowns will have the desired effect of bringing the curve under control again. They won't eradicate the virus of course and they will cause major economic damage. Getting that balance right is the extremely difficult part.

 

Everyone in the US has access to quality healthcare regardless of ability to pay, been that way for decades.

The Swedish plan was never a plan to reduce deaths from a virus that will do what viruses do. It was a plan to mitigate the situation to the best of their ability while preserving their economy. The lockdowns only kick the can down the road. After the new round of restrictions is lifted there will be another spike in cases and a new round of lockdowns. Can you see the cycle? Sweden will not go through any of that. For perspective, two days ago the Swedish national board of health care reported 55 Covid patients in intensive care. They should make it ok.

 

The American Journal of Medicine seems to disagree:

Does coverage affect medical outcomes?

There is an association among health insurance coverage, access to health care, and patient outcomes. Although 57% of the public reported they believe that those without health insurance are able to get the care they need, one survey found that the uninsured were less than half as likely as those with insurance to receive medical care for a serious medical condition, as judged by physicians.
18
The most important prerequisite for access to care is health insurance coverage. Without it, most people cannot afford medical care. They are more likely to postpone or go without necessary treatment for fear of high medical bills.
19
In fact, uninsured adults are at least four times as likely as the insured to report delaying or foregoing needed health services.
Growing evidence from large observational studies reveals the staggering effects of insurance status on general health outcomes. The uninsured poor, for example, are more likely to delay hospitalization compared with those with private health insurance, and when in the hospital, uninsured patients stay longer and experience higher death rates. In addition, hospitalized uninsured patients are 2.3 times more likely than those with insurance to have adverse iatrogenic events.
20
,
21
Uninsured patients are twice as likely to die over 15 years compared with insured patients (18.4% vs 9.6%); even after adjusting for major health risk factors, mortality remains 25% higher among the uninsured.
22
The effects of poor access to care for the uninsured are particularly striking for diseases which require early detection. The uninsured receive fewer preventive services such as blood pressure checks, mammograms, and screening for colorectal cancer.
2
For example, the loss of Medicaid coverage has been associated with a 10-point increase in diastolic blood pressure and a 15% increase in the hemoglobin A1C in diabetic patients. This has translated into a higher probability of death over 6 months.
21
In addition, because regular preventive care is not received, the uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at advanced stages of cancer. Greater than 40% of uninsured women are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer, and 40% to 50% are more likely to die of breast cancer, compared with insured women, depending on their age.
23
In the case of acute care, outcomes are consistently worse for uninsured patients. Among patients with appendicitis, for example, uninsured individuals were 1.5 times more likely than insured patients to present with an appediceal rupture.
24

Conclusion

The problem of the uninsured in the United States is rapidly becoming a crisis, affecting a broader cross-section of society with each passing year. Growth in the numbers of uninsured Americans has continued annually for over the past decade, and currently more than 17% of the nonelderly population are uninsured. The poor and members of certain minority groups have historically been excluded by a system of voluntary health insurance in the United States. However, contrary to public perception, most Americans without health insurance today are members of working families and are U.S. citizens. The crisis of the uninsured has increasingly become a problem that reaches all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, and across a wide spectrum of occupations. Despite recent attempts to improve pediatric insurance coverage, children remain 20% of the total uninsured population.
The uninsured are battling both the decreasing affordability and availability of private health insurance, as well as the increasing restrictions on public health insurance programs. Despite an improved economy, obtaining low-cost health care when needed is becoming more difficult for the uninsured. Fewer employers cover their workers because of the increasing cost of health care, and fewer people can afford to pay. The high cost of private insurance plans themselves clearly affects access to medical services in that fewer people can afford health insurance. In addition, the increasing level of out-of-pocket costs for premiums and co-pays reduces usage of health care services.
25
,
26
Governmental reforms to increase private and public health insurance have made little impact, and in some cases have made the problem worse. Thus, the gap between the increasing cost of health care and the reduced purchasing power of those trying to access health care seems to be the biggest factor in this national crisis.
Furthermore, the uninsured are more likely to have poorer health outcomes than those with health insurance. The high cost of care causes many uninsured people to postpone or forego necessary treatment. As a group, the uninsured are having their diseases detected later, and their morbidity and mortality are higher.
Whether or not one has health insurance affects job decisions, financial security, access to care, and health status. But lack of insurance and gaps in coverage affect all of society. When an uninsured person goes to a public hospital or clinic, an emergency department, or a private physician for care and cannot pay the full cost, some of the bill is passed on to those who do pay, through higher insurance premiums and in the form of taxes supporting our public medical insurance programs. We all pay for having a large and growing uninsured population.
Americans have boasted for years that we have the best health care in the world, but if this is true, it is the case only for those with health insurance. In fact, the clear relationship between insurance status and health outcomes should be considered a national emergency. If access to medical care and health care coverage correlates with improved clinical outcomes, where is the cry from the medical profession to increase both of these? If doctors are entrusted with improving the health care of our patients, we must be at the forefront of moving legislation toward increasing the coverage of all our citizens, thereby increasing the overall health of our nation.
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002...756-4/fulltext

 

Ever occur to you that most people will delay risking bankruptcy inducing medical bills for "just the flu"?

Ever occur to you what delaying treatment has on morbidity?

 

We can do this all day.

TWO BIG PROBLEMS WITH SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE

Posted by Mises Wire | Jan 8, 2020 | Business & Economics | 0 The single-payer healthcare system is a healthcare system in which one party is the sole provider of medical services within a society. Generally speaking, the party that manages the single-payer system is the government. In the United States, the idea of a single-payer system has gained support among many Americans under the rallying cry “Medicare for All,” which is a political term used to make the proposal sound more inclusive. Yet it is also a term that reveals the government’s subtle takeover of the healthcare industry.

WHAT SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT THE SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM?

The main argument in favor of the single-payer system is that the whole medical industry would be solely managed by the federal government in favor of patient interests. Under such a system, every member of society would be directly covered, which means he/she would have access to medical care regardless of ability to pay. All medical costs and expenditures would be directly covered by the federal government — that is, by the taxpayers. Premiums, co-pays, and private insurances would be eliminated; therefore, individuals would not have to pay for medical expenses out of pocket.

The idea seems attractive to many on the surface. However, judging a policy based on its intent rather than the result it produces is the mistake that every society makes in policy decisions. Nevertheless, polls conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation show that a large majority (73 percent) of the American electorate supports the initiative. These polls have concluded, though, that most Americans don’t realize how dramatically the leading Medicare for All proposals would restructure the nation’s healthcare system.

That is, many are unaware that under a single-payer system, the federal government would fully control access to healthcare. Were they aware of the threat single-payer systems pose to access and quality, it is unclear whether the idea would enjoy so much support. As we have seen in recent years in the United Kingdom and in Canada, single-payer systems do indeed restrict access and quality. They just do it by imposing long wait times, cutting off costlier patients, and restricting access to hospital rooms.

These problems are not surprising. From the perspective of economic theory, there are two major reasons why we should expect access to healthcare to be such a problem under a government-managed single-payer system.

ONE: THE KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM

The reason why the single-payer system will produce long-term negative consequences for society is because it primarily ignores the laws of supply and demand. The laws of supply and demand are based upon the principle of scarcity, which is the gap between limitless wants and limited resources. The same principle applies to the single-payer system.

Prices are precise signals used to determine the volume of production needed in an industry. Under a single-payer system, there will be no price system, and this lack of prices will distort the knowledge required to determine the quantity of medical services that needs to be produced.

For example, the bureaucrats of the US Department of Health and Human Services, despite their alleged expertise in the domain, do not possess enough knowledge to adequately determine the precise quantity of medical supply that needs to be produced for 325 million inhabitants. The single-payer system theoretically grants everyone free access to medical care, and this access will increase the demand for services but without any mechanism for prioritizing cases.

A shortage of supply will result, creating long waiting lists to see a doctor and a shortage of doctor’s availability. This shortage could increase the rate of mortality, because patients with urgent and chronic conditions will not necessarily be prioritized. For example, in Canada, which is one of the very few developed countries with a single-payer system, patients waited a record of 21.2 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist after being referred by their general practitioner.

Rural Canadians faced worse delays, with a 42-week wait period in New Brunswick and a 38-week wait period in Nova Scotia.

TWO: THE TAX BURDEN PROBLEM

Second, the single-payer system will be a burden on the American taxpayer. In fact, the first ten years of Medicare for All will cost $32.6 trillion. These $32 trillion cannot be allocated unless taxes are raised on the middle class and working families. Today, 18 percent of the national GDP is already spent on healthcare (private health spending and government spending combined). Maintaining similar levels of healthcare service provisions under total government control would require immense amounts of government spending and taxation.

Single-payer regulators would no doubt impose price restrictions on services. But the result would only be increased demand without expanded services, resulting in longer wait times and restricted access for certain groups — just as we see in the Canadian and UK examples today. Avoiding significant increases in wait time or cuts in access would require tax increases. Yet, as we’ve seen even in single-payer countries, taxpayers resist tax increases. And, of course, more spending on healthcare means less spending on other important resources. Since government-mandated healthcare plans generally focus on access rather than cost and quality, the result of this limited tax base for healthcare will be increased costs to patients in terms of wait times and other nonmonetary methods of restricting access.

Ultimately, however, patients will have nowhere else to go. While many Canadians today travel to the US to gain access to care denied to them by their own single-payer system, this option will be eliminated if the US embraces single-payer. Americans would then need to travel to a locale without single-payer, such as Switzerland, to the avoid restrictions imposed by these systems. Needless to say, this will impose large barriers to access to healthcare outside the system.

The wealthy will still be able to afford the highest-quality care. A great many ordinary people, however, may find themselves considerably worse off.

 

Ever occur to you that the reason costs soar is due to government intervention and insurance company mismanagement. Two areas of medicine are not paid by insurance or government. Lasik and Plastic surgery. Both have improved dramatically and have had lower prices. Those areas of medicine not affected by government or insurance have bucked the cost trends because people negotiate and price shop. When insurance or government pay prices go unchecked and affordability goes away.

 

Nice dodge. I'll give you extra points for your "what about" logic fail.

Keep reminding yourself about how great our medical system is.

 

Impeach Harris! no no no - that puts Pelosi next in line.

 

No, No you have it mixed up. Impeach Harris then impeach Joe, then impeach Joe to get to Pelosi.

Who's the boss, Joe? Now Biden refers to the ticket as the 'Harris/Biden administration' - days after Kamala Harris made the same slip

• Democratic nominee Joe Biden called his campaign 'Harris-Biden' during remarks in Tampa, Florida
• Biden echoed a similar gaffe made by his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, on Saturday, who called the ticket 'a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden'

 

A Pelosi administration - **** - gotta go - I just puked and shat myself