On the fence about Universal Healthcare

[spartan max2]

It's been on my mind lately, so I figured I would post here to get people's thoughts. 

I am on the fence about if universal healthcare is a good idea or not.

On one hand, splitting the Insurance risk amongst everyone might may insurance cheaper. More healthy people in the insurance pool paying for the sick, on the other hand there would also be more sick people in the pool.

Taxes would have to go up, there is no doubt there. But by how much? I already pay 200 a month for insurance would the tax end up making me pay more then 200 a month, the same, or less? Taxes typically take more the higher your income the more that will be took out from a tax. 

On one hand, it is morally good for people who are sick for no reason of their own to not be drowned by health bills, on the other hand it sucks to have to pay more to pay for people who do not care about taking care of themselves, basically paying for others bad decisions. 

On one hand, health shouldn't be a for profit system it's kind of messed up, on the other hand the government is often slow and inefficient. 

 

I honestly just am not sure.

 

What are peoples thoughts on it? And their reasons for why it is good or bad?

Edited October 16, 2019 by spartan max2

[+susieice]

I don't know. Maybe people think that Medicare for all will mean you won't have to pay for your Medicare coverage monthly like you do now and you'll no longer need a supplemental to cover everything that Medicare doesn't. Right now, you can't have just Medicare without another insurance because you can be billed for everything that isn't covered and that can end up costing you tens of thousands of $$$. Medicare only pays about 80% and a lot isn't covered at all. You are also limited on a lot of procedures. We would need to see how they plan to do this and just what it will cover. You could end up paying premiums anyway.

Edited October 16, 2019 by susieice

[+and-then]

I worked in the VA Medical system for 5 years so I can speak with at least SOME knowledge of how that system operates.

I think the most fundamental fact that must be faced in this discussion is that the government cannot possibly do as good a job with such a complicated endeavor as healthcare for ALL citizens, as the private, for profit system has shown that it can accomplish.

The expense of the system is unsustainable and it must change in some fundamental way but simply decreeing by government diktat that everyone WILL be covered, is just smoke and political doublespeak that will have the effect of destroying one of the best systems the world has ever created and replacing it with a morass of unworkable problems for which no individual can be held accountable.

I can already hear the dissenters saying that no system that is unaffordable can be considered the "best created".  To that I say, America's health industry is a monster of innovation that is the envy of the world from a perspective of its efficacy and the numbers of people that are benefitting from that progress.  No insult intended to our cousins across the Pond but the UK is not known now for cutting edge advancements at the same rate as U.S. or even Israeli startups in the health industries.  The simple, irrefutable fact is that excellence chases the profit motive.  ALL people want to be recognized and enriched for their efforts.  Not many people are ever going to choose to work in as stressful an environment as is found in hospitals unless they are being compensated commensurate to the time and expense that their education represents.

Who here would choose to work in health care and deal with sick people, crazy, unpredictable schedules and stressed out coworkers and supervisors for the same pay they could earn on a 9 to 5 job in retail or in an office where they leave the problems from work AT work?  

Universal health care is a pipe dream and it is being sold to gullible people who want to believe they can get a very expensive item for next to no cost to them.  The truth is  that the resources - infrastructure, personnel, medical miracle equipment - are all FINITE in quantity.  They are already approaching capacity even before we add another million illegals every year.  To buy in to the fantasy, a person has to suspend logic and depend on feelings and promises.  The fact is that the health provider system ceases to be a growing, advancing industry and becomes a zero sum game once a government bureaucracy gains control.  Governments do not innovate or excel at providing services on time or budget, just the opposite in fact.

When Americans in large enough numbers, finally drink the Kool Aid that is "Medicare for all", the reality will quickly become apparent and it will be too late to turn around.  We will go from being one of the best to one of the worst in less than a decade.  The level of care that a poor person can receive today will never be matched under that system.  All it will accomplish is to make us all equal in our misery.

[+and-then]

23 minutes ago, susieice said:

I don't know. Maybe people think that Medicare for all will mean you won't have to pay for your Medicare coverage monthly like you do now and you'll no longer need a supplemental to cover everything that Medicare doesn't. Right now, you can't have just Medicare without another insurance because you can be billed for everything that isn't covered and that can end up costing you tens of thousands of $$$. Medicare only pays about 80% and a lot isn't covered at all. You are also limited on a lot of procedures. We would need to see how they plan to do this and just what it will cover. You could end up paying premiums anyway.

This^ plus the elephant in the ER that they never address - the current pool that medicare is serving, and doing an excellent job at, will be increased almost exponentially while the number of available physicians will shrink.  That adds up to extreme waiting lists for most services, less time with a physician (when you can even see a fully qualified MD rather than a Licensed Practitioner) severely limited access to diagnostic technology that is just an afterthought in today's system and the inevitable micro-management of the health choices of the citizens by government panels that will decide who gets priority based on their lifestyle and how many "bad" behaviors they are guilty of.  Smokers, the obese and drug addicts will be winnowed out of the herd first.  When there simply isn't enough capacity, what is available has to be prioritized like a triage.  Guess who gets to make those choices?  It certainly won't be the provider.  They'll just be demoralized, underpaid,overworked government drones.  The idea of "death lists" that so many ridiculed will become an acknowledged FACT of life for millions.  It will all be about the "numbers" and return on investment.  It will be a brave new world indeed.  I'm really happy that I won't have to be around for much of it.

[+OverSword]

Against, until they can show that doing so will significantly lower costs especially for prescription Rx. Otherwise I will be trading my very good coverage for mediocre.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Against, until they can show that doing so will significantly lower costs especially for prescription Rx. Otherwise I will be trading my very good coverage for mediocre.

I believe that when the Dems regain power enough, they WILL pass some form of it.  All it will take is to begin the process and private insurance carriers will die and leave no choice but single payer.  Of course, it won't be the plan for the anointed in DC, heavens no.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Taxes would have to go up, there is no doubt there.

Universal healthcare would overall actually be cheaper, per person, than the private system. I've read a few sources that make a good case for this claim. You should research it a bit.

[Tatetopa]

If gasoline cost $30 dollars a gallon, it wouldn't help us much for the government to give everybody $10 dollars a gallon to help us out.

Part of the problem is our health care system.  Part of the problem is us.  Giving us coverage seems like a nice thing to do, but without changing our habits and changing how we deliver health care, it will not keep costs from climbing out of sight over time.

Andthen has experience, I just have opinions so I will defer to him in case of tie.

If drugs cost too much, I think there might be three ways to bring cost down without destroying the free enterprise system.

Volume bargaining.  Medicade was prevented from doing that by Congress to protect drug companies.  If Medicare  & Medicaid and V/A is going to buy a billion dollars worth of insulin, they should get a volume discount.  That is the way Costco or Walmart has low prices.

If American companies are too high, we should be allowed to buy mail order from Canada, Europe, or Mexico.

Patents for medicines are designed for payback of research.  If government or universities contribute to that research, protection time should be reduced.  Or the FDA grants 10 billion dollars a year for research and medicines produced under their auspices get a price reduction.  They could focus on low payback drugs that only a few hundred or thousand people desperately need to stay alive.  You have no doubt heard of kids whose parents have a $200K a year prescription bill.  

Education could play a part too. The US is not the most obese country  in the world, it looks like Polynesian nations hold that title, but we are more obese than most of our European friends.   That may be one reason why European health care is less expensive.  Preventative medicine could be stressed.  A lot of insurance discourages smoking and pays for yearly checkups and dental checks.    Giving only that to all people , dental and health checks might go a long way to making us healthier and live longer for cheaper.  Nurse practitioners  seem to do a really good job on this level.   Truth is, everybody does not need 8 years of medical school to treat most common complaints.

I think andthen does have a point, there is not enough bureaucracy nor do we want it to administer some kind of insurance plan for all citizens.  That does not mean the government can not provide some leverage and resources and education to help at a basic some basic level.  As a suggestion, find coal miners and laid off auto plant workers that could be retrained as community health care workers and put them to work in their home towns. 

The point is we don't have to go overboard socialist, but we can do some things to make our situation better.  First of course, you have to care about citizens.

 

 

[godnodog]

The reason why in most countries with public health services are doing a poor job is because politicians are deliberately under financing it, in order to later on to 2 things:

1- At electoral campaingns, they promisse to raise the healt srrvices budget, they wont

2- they wont because they are subservient to private interests and want to slowly end the public service

Public nealth care being crap is BS, intentional underfunded is the real culprid, take a look at the US, imagine if all working citizens pooled together for a basic health care service, and public contract biddings would far bigger than any private health business, but than again the median profkt margin per customer would drop significantly.

Also when I refer to basic public health care I dont mean this gender change operations, or boobs jobs, I mean life threathning cenarios, vaccinations programs, cancer prevention programs, etc, accident injuries, etc.

Take a look at my country, where extreme absurd situations occurs, the budget is low, so hospitals are not allowed to hire more doctos becajse its too expensive, but the Health Department allows hospitals to hire services provided by private corporations at 10x or more the cost of hiring directly a doctor, hey but private sector provides a better job. I call this corruption.

If I lived in the USA I would be dead by now, as I could not afford private health plans insurance.

I am not agains private health systems, I do welcome them.

Call me a commie if you want, but public bealth care services is a necessity.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by godnodog

[godnodog]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

If gasoline cost $.?.....? about citizens.

You beat me by seconds, when adressing the real issue behind this.

[Tatetopa]

9 minutes ago, godnodog said:

The reason why in most countries with public health services are doing a poor job is because politicians are deliberately under financing it, in order to later on to 2 things:

1- At electoral campaingns, they promisse to raise the healt srrvices budget, they wont

2- they wont because they are subservient to private interests and want to slowly end the public service

Public nealth care being crap is BS, intentional underfunded is the real culprid, take a look at the US, imagine if all working citizens pooled together for a basic health care service, and public contract biddings would far bigger than any private health business, but than again the median profkt margin per customer would drop significantly.

Also when I refer to basic public health care I dont mean this gender change operations, or boobs jobs, I mean life threathning cenarios, vaccinations programs, cancer prevention programs, etc, accident injuries, etc.

Take a look at my country, where extreme absurd situations occurs, the budget is low, so hospitals are not allowed to hire more doctos becajse its too expensive, but the Health Department allows hospitals to hire services provided by private corporations at 10x or more the cost of hiring directly a doctor, hey but private sector provides a better job. I call this corruption.

If I lived in the USA I would be dead by now, as I could not afford private health plans insurance.

I am not agains private health systems, I do welcome them.

Call me a commie if you want, but public bealth care services is a necessity.

Good post.  

[Robotic Jew]

I'm for it but will admit it's partially for selfish reasons. I currently pay close to $10k per year on health coverage and medical costs(that I will NEVER have relief from) due to a condition I have that is neither preventable or curable. If the new system could provide me with the same amount of service i get now and lower that cost I'd be all in. I can't imagine the tax hike to cover this would add up to being as much as I'm currently paying. I've also seen several friends lose as close to everything they have  as you can get simply from a medical issue that wasn't preventable and was no fault of their own. Doing away with that should be a major priority regardless of who is in power. It seems that everyday I see another Gofundme set up and shared by people who need assistance paying for medical bills. And if that's what we are saying is the ideal way to handle medical situations then we have simply lost all signs of humanity. 

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

That does not mean the government can not provide some leverage and resources and education to help at a basic some basic level.  As a suggestion, find coal miners and laid off auto plant workers that could be retrained as community health care workers and put them to work in their home towns. 

The point is we don't have to go overboard socialist, but we can do some things to make our situation better.  First of course, you have to care about citizens.

I couldn't agree more.  The status quo is unsustainable and even though Americans have access to the best care, there is no denying the economic stress it places on families.  I won't get up on a soapbox or gore anyone's Ox too badly but I believe the single most effective starting point for turning around the price insanity would be serious Tort reform at the state and national level.  My wife is a Pathologist and has always worked for Practices owned by others or for Hospital groups so she hasn't had to deal with coming out of pocket for Malpractice insurance but it is an expense that ALL physicians (and patients) pay for if they are going to do business in America.  To try to ignore that would be the equivalent of not having fire insurance on a home in California.  

As an MRI tech, I can attest to the numbers of brain scans that were done as an afterthought just to be thorough because if a patient presents to the ER with a headache and with no obvious reason for it, if the doc tells them to go home and take a couple of aspirin and call back if it doesn't improve then that doctor may have just thrown away up to 10 years of postgraduate education, her career, her economic security... just due to the possibility that that patient, that day, was the one in a million aggressive brain tumor.

It has gotten so crazy that even simple diagnostic imaging technologists like I was were increasingly looking into buying policies.  I don't mean to trash all legal Beagles.  I know they serve a legitimate purpose, I just think that somewhere along the way we stopped talking to each other and started letting lawyers do it for us because the allure of being the victim AND getting paid for it was too great a temptation.  The result in the medical field especially, is that treatment algorithms- basically, flow charts designed to insure that every possible test that might be necessary to rule out ANY statistically likely condition secondary to a set of symptoms, has been created and it is considered to be the "standard of care" for a given medical emergency or condition.  

Doing less than the recommended standard of care is almost a guaranteed lawsuit IF the family are the litigious kind.  It is essentially a quest to hold human beings in this field responsible for perfection and there isn't another field out there where this is the case to the same extent.  When I had my cervical decompression last Thursday, I had discussed the potential downside and possible complications with the surgeon, I decided the risk was worth it to be free of the chronic pain AND the need for stronger pain meds in future.  That was MY choice and God forbid, had I awakened paralyzed, I would have had to live with that choice.  

I guess my point is that our medical legal tangle that is destroying the best system ever, is an US problem.  As a culture, we don't want to be personally responsible for our choices.  Of course, there are bad doctors just like there are bad every other profession but there isn't another profession out there that is policed, inspected, audited and sued as much as the medical profession and it's all down to the ease of huge payouts from insurance companies.  Those who engage in it will tell you it's a victimless crime if they admit it to be a crime at all.  Pass laws that limit damages to the actual cost of future treatments for the disability that is caused and have a cap on punitive damages and the profit motive for lawsuits would dry up.  

The greatest irony of all here is that while the Congress won't act on this because of the money that flows into their campaigns from injury lawyers, they eventually WILL pass some form of Medicare for all and I can assure you that the gravy train for the lawyers will END with that legislation because you won't be allowed to sue your favorite Uncle.  It will be a MIRACLE!  Malpractice won't exist anymore.  So, why the HELL can't we skip the part where we destroy our system rather than do serious Tort reform if that Tort reform is going to happen anyway?  What sense does that make?

[Dark_Grey]

A hybrid system is best. There is primary medical care available for all but also a "pay to play" option for those with the means. Unfortunately, as with all Government services, health care becomes expensive, less efficient and bloated. 

[+and-then]

16 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

And if that's what we are saying is the ideal way to handle medical situations then we have simply lost all signs of humanity. 

Your story is repeated millions of times, all over the country but do you still get the treatment you need?  The reason I ask is that once a "Medicare for all" (doesn't that sound wonderful?) system is put in place, the government that we see squabbling over ridiculous stuff and who we see putting off critical decisions while they fight for turf in DC...THAT same government will be in charge of making life and death decisions about your health care.  I hope people who are being crushed by the current system will take the time to look into what is being planned and to LISTEN very carefully when the candidate explains how much it will cost and how it will be funded.

Our system absolutely has to be reset and streamlined but simply doing away with private insurance, giving everyone a "card" and telling them you are covered, is going to be the worst thing that could possibly happen to healthcare in America.  If people look into the facts and make the decision to go with Medicare for all anyway then they will at least have done so with eyes wide open and will understand that they can have no complaints when the horror stories begin.  This might seem like another Left vs Right issue but that isn't true at all.  This is an issue that will dominate the fortunes of our families for the foreseeable future.

I think that, at best, we might craft some sort of hybrid system together that would be at least as beneficial as the one they built in Cuba.  With a strict system of supply, logistics, and streamlined administrative procedures we could put together a system that is relatively efficient and economically manageable but that would require creating a bureaucracy where everyone along the chain were ALL invested in doing the very best job they could, all the time.  No cheaters, no scammers, no way.  That, unfortunately, just isn't possible.  

[+and-then]

13 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

A hybrid system is best. There is primary medical care available for all but also a "pay to play" option for those with the means. Unfortunately, as with all Government services, health care becomes expensive, less efficient and bloated. 

I haven't tried to pay close attention to the proposals from the DNC candidates yet but what little I've heard, it seems they all want single payer and the assumption seems to be that private insurers will be a thing of the past.  EVERYONE who cannot come out of pocket in cash for the entire bill will be on the new system.  My guess is that the physicians that choose to stay in the profession will find a way around the juggernaut.  I've heard of some of the specialists teaming with family physicians and creating their own small networks where they contract their services for an annual fee.  The limitations would be significant but for generally healthy people it could be the answer.

[+Desertrat56]

11 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It's been on my mind lately, so I figured I would post here to get people's thoughts. 

I am on the fence about if universal healthcare is a good idea or not.

On one hand, splitting the Insurance risk amongst everyone might may insurance cheaper. More healthy people in the insurance pool paying for the sick, on the other hand there would also be more sick people in the pool.

Taxes would have to go up, there is no doubt there. But by how much? I already pay 200 a month for insurance would the tax end up making me pay more then 200 a month, the same, or less? Taxes typically take more the higher your income the more that will be took out from a tax. 

On one hand, it is morally good for people who are sick for no reason of their own to not be drowned by health bills, on the other hand it sucks to have to pay more to pay for people who do not care about taking care of themselves, basically paying for others bad decisions. 

On one hand, health shouldn't be a for profit system it's kind of messed up, on the other hand the government is often slow and inefficient. 

 

I honestly just am not sure.

 

What are peoples thoughts on it? And their reasons for why it is good or bad?

Since you are in the U.S. I totally understand your thinking.  I have thought about it too and I would rather pay more taxes than pay an insurance company one more penny.  I am really frustrated with the current system we have.  It has penalized anyone who was already self insured (small business, people who only do contract work - which includes almost any industry, farmers, etc.) has seen their premiums go up over ridiculously.  My sister paid 700.00 a month to be self insured before now she pays over 2000.00 a month for less coverage.  Less coverage!!!!   That is not a family plan, that is a one person plan.  The insurance companies are raping people and the current healthcare insurance requirement has set that up, just like the requirement that anyone who owns a car has to have auto insurance and any one with a mortgage has to have home insurance.  (on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but....) 

When Nixon was president his administration was trying to get something passed that would give everyone health care, but it went round and round until Obama was in office and congress finally removed the stipulation that the insurance companies could NOT raise the rates on there current customers.  Employers can't afford to pay the horrifying rates the insurance companies are asking either so now almost everyone is on a high deductible plan.  Mine is 5000.00 a year, and because the company is so horrified at that they are paying the first 3000.00.  It costs them less to do that than to put us on a plan that has a lower deductible.  That is how messed up it is.

So, in order for the U.S. to even think about universal health care they would have to make medical insurance illegal, but then the insurance companies along with big oil and big pharma are running our country, not our elected officials.  In order to change that we have to get rid of lobbyists etc.  It is never going to happen.

 

[spartan max2]

26 minutes ago, and then said:

I haven't tried to pay close attention to the proposals from the DNC candidates yet but what little I've heard, it seems they all want single payer and the assumption seems to be that private insurers will be a thing of the past.  EVERYONE who cannot come out of pocket in cash for the entire bill will be on the new system.  My guess is that the physicians that choose to stay in the profession will find a way around the juggernaut.  I've heard of some of the specialists teaming with family physicians and creating their own small networks where they contract their services for an annual fee.  The limitations would be significant but for generally healthy people it could be the answer.

With the Dem candidates the argument is between a Medicare for all option with no private insurances vs a public option. 

[+Desertrat56]

11 hours ago, and then said:

I worked in the VA Medical system for 5 years so I can speak with at least SOME knowledge of how that system operates.

I think the most fundamental fact that must be faced in this discussion is that the government cannot possibly do as good a job with such a complicated endeavor as healthcare for ALL citizens, as the private, for profit system has shown that it can accomplish.

The expense of the system is unsustainable and it must change in some fundamental way but simply decreeing by government diktat that everyone WILL be covered, is just smoke and political doublespeak that will have the effect of destroying one of the best systems the world has ever created and replacing it with a morass of unworkable problems for which no individual can be held accountable.

I can already hear the dissenters saying that no system that is unaffordable can be considered the "best created".  To that I say, America's health industry is a monster of innovation that is the envy of the world from a perspective of its efficacy and the numbers of people that are benefitting from that progress.  No insult intended to our cousins across the Pond but the UK is not known now for cutting edge advancements at the same rate as U.S. or even Israeli startups in the health industries.  The simple, irrefutable fact is that excellence chases the profit motive.  ALL people want to be recognized and enriched for their efforts.  Not many people are ever going to choose to work in as stressful an environment as is found in hospitals unless they are being compensated commensurate to the time and expense that their education represents.

Who here would choose to work in health care and deal with sick people, crazy, unpredictable schedules and stressed out coworkers and supervisors for the same pay they could earn on a 9 to 5 job in retail or in an office where they leave the problems from work AT work?  

Universal health care is a pipe dream and it is being sold to gullible people who want to believe they can get a very expensive item for next to no cost to them.  The truth is  that the resources - infrastructure, personnel, medical miracle equipment - are all FINITE in quantity.  They are already approaching capacity even before we add another million illegals every year.  To buy in to the fantasy, a person has to suspend logic and depend on feelings and promises.  The fact is that the health provider system ceases to be a growing, advancing industry and becomes a zero sum game once a government bureaucracy gains control.  Governments do not innovate or excel at providing services on time or budget, just the opposite in fact.

When Americans in large enough numbers, finally drink the Kool Aid that is "Medicare for all", the reality will quickly become apparent and it will be too late to turn around.  We will go from being one of the best to one of the worst in less than a decade.  The level of care that a poor person can receive today will never be matched under that system.  All it will accomplish is to make us all equal in our misery.

The bolded part - No, you somehow are insulated from the actual way our health care system works.  Yes, U.S. hospitals are the best in the world when it comes to trauma, but they suck rotten eggs if you are ill.  The system is run by the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that create some very useless and at the very least, unhelpful therapies for the ill.  It becomes a treatment of symptoms instead of investigation into the root cause.  So, people are medicated and those medications have side effects and are given more medication to alleviate the side effects but those have more side effects ad nauseum...  There is no way anyone across the pond could be envious of our medical system, especially considering how much we have to pay out of pocket.

[Dark_Grey]

44 minutes ago, and then said:

I haven't tried to pay close attention to the proposals from the DNC candidates yet but what little I've heard, it seems they all want single payer and the assumption seems to be that private insurers will be a thing of the past.  EVERYONE who cannot come out of pocket in cash for the entire bill will be on the new system. 

I can get on board with that. The option to split the bill between insurance and cash would be nice but would also add a ton of extra paperwork for the insurers and the Hospitals. Still, it would be a nice option.

Quote

My guess is that the physicians that choose to stay in the profession will find a way around the juggernaut.  I've heard of some of the specialists teaming with family physicians and creating their own small networks where they contract their services for an annual fee.  The limitations would be significant but for generally healthy people it could be the answer.

 The option for Doctors to open private businesses should always be on the table. Let the free market stretch it's legs here - Doctors competing for business means lower prices and potentially better services. Here is Leafland, Doctors don't make as much as they could in the US so many leave. Being on the Government's payroll isn't great when the health care budget is restricted. It doesn't exactly inspire these Doctors to work harder or more efficiently.

[+Desertrat56]

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Patents for medicines are designed for payback of research.  If government or universities contribute to that research, protection time should be reduced.  Or the FDA grants 10 billion dollars a year for research and medicines produced under their auspices get a price reduction.  They could focus on low payback drugs that only a few hundred or thousand people desperately need to stay alive.  You have no doubt heard of kids whose parents have a $200K a year prescription bill.  

 

Exactly, but one of the reasons Insulin is so expensive, as well as other drugs, is that the companies who own the patents change the formula slightly so that they can re-patent the drug and keep others from producing it.  So, you have a reprobate company raking in almost 80% profit on a drug that the patent should have expired and the patients who need that drug have to find a way, as well as the insurance companies have to be sure their clients can afford it, etc.  A new nightmare.  Look it up, it happens a lot, most recently the makers of the epi-pen were sued because of this.  I think there is a law suit pending on the insulin issue as well.

here's one link I found - https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/11/drug-patent-protection-one-done/

an article was done by Hasan Minhoj about this on his show Patriot Act.  He has really good researchers and sometimes I think 20 minutes is too short to cover everything, but at least it is food for thought.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Desertrat56

[aztek]

nope, from practical point of view, hell no,. everything gvmnt does turns to sht, 

[Tatetopa]

Does anybody have any information on how AI might impact healthcare? A glorified Fitbit you could plug into your computer every morning might help monitor your status and AI diagnostics might help identify the best course of action.  

[+Desertrat56]

12 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Does anybody have any information on how AI might impact healthcare? A glorified Fitbit you could plug into your computer every morning might help monitor your status and AI diagnostics might help identify the best course of action.  

Currently in the U.S. there are some heart tests that are similar to a fitbit, and maybe there will be others, but that is far down the road.  If you use your fitbit to monitor your health then you are using outside of the current medical system, like taking vitamins and exercising as you see fit, or going to a homeopathic doctor instead of an allotapthic doctor that works in the current system.

[Robotic Jew]

34 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Does anybody have any information on how AI might impact healthcare? A glorified Fitbit you could plug into your computer every morning might help monitor your status and AI diagnostics might help identify the best course of action.  

It already is in some areas. Some diabetes treatments rely on more and more sophisticated AI-like as the years roll on. The effect it will have in the future is surely something that is being worked on by a large number of companies. The problem will be the same one that diabetics currently face and that is cost. A device such as that will be manufactured cheaply and sold at enormous prices.