I don’t know because I’m in the US, but does universal healthcare in other countries cover autism-related therapies and care such as ABA, occupational and speech at the rates recommend by docs (our docs recommended 20+ hours/week - or roughly the cost of $100k/year)? And is that factored into the equation?
I haven’t seen the official modeling, just assumptions around the internet. But back of the napkin math suggests that appropriate autism care alone could be quite high: 1/36 of the 341,500,000 American residents have autism. Assuming 15% need care in the range of $100k, would be somewhere around $138b/year for just autism care. Does that seem in line with what you are thinking? Either way, are you able to point me to some of the modeling you have found? I’d love to learn more about how it tactically works.
But what do you base those 15% on? Might as well be 1%, or even lower. In the end its just your own intuition, based on nothing. Hell, if they were capable of answering that survey, I don’t think they’d need that much support.
Nothing, back of the napkin math for discussion purposes based on the 2 diagnosisea and doc recommendations we’ve gotten. Totally can adjust if you have a more accurate number.
Doesn’t change the fact that US prices are orders of magnitude out of proportion. You simply can’t use it as a yardstick.
Now, if you’re looking at the plain amount of material, manufacturing, infrastructure, and labour required, then you’re making sense.
But it seems you’re making the argument that too many people cost more to care for than they are “worth” in terms of economics, and would be too great a burden on the productivity of the healthy for a universal healthcare system to function.
But that’s not even close to true. Universal healthcare is essentially an attempt at triage on national scale. To apply resources where they do the most good.
In comparison, commercial market healthcare is just less efficient across the board. A universal system is able to provide more care for more people at less cost, even if it isn’t able to do so for everyone in every situation.
No-one is claiming universal healthcare systems save everyone and care for every ailment, every time. The argument is that it’s simply the smarter way to use the resources a country has.
So, you totally hit the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more: It is about maximizing resources for overall good. It is just that some groups may not see a qualitative difference in care.
I’m just doing some simple deductive reasoning. If a person who suffers from a disability receives life changing care and are able to rejoin the workforce you have taken someone who would otherwise cost tax payers and have added an income stream to the tax pool. Similarly you may provide care to people who aren’t necessarily disabled but have no means to get a life changing diagnosis and medication which allows them to complete higher education.
For every person you take out of the prison system and put into the workforce you are freeing up resources while also creating resources.
Man, I wish the hundreds of thousands of dollars of care we got positioned my kids into the workforce. Our reality is that all that while the care did help and make their lives much better - it won’t translate into productivity or self sufficiency. 🙁 I am super worried that will practically mean a universal healthcare system in the US limits disability care because it isn’t deemed as having a good enough ROI.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life. And that very concept could risk society’s willingness to pay for any disabled person’s full care under universal healthcare.
No, it is from unfortunate personal experience. Special needs families get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways - ours included. Feel free to IM me about it if you want specific anecdotes. After killing myself to get my kids what they need (navigating insurance denials, waiting lists for specialists, underfunded and confusing government programs, lack of childcare, hitting out of pocket maximums year after year, and taking jobs that leave me exhausted and with little family time to pay for it all), I have a huge defense mechanism for anything that sounds like it can quickly and easily solve this kind of situation - because I’ve been repeatedly shown it is a pipe dream. It doesn’t mean UHC isn’t a noble cause or the right way to go. But the reality is that it probably won’t be much of a qualitative change for families like ours. And it is hard to hear that our experiences and fears are not valid.
I hear where you’re coming from. I can’t even begin to imagine how tired you are after all these hardships. The fact that you’re still writing civil replies to the other person is commendable.
I would like to respectfully say that universal healthcare would have eliminated the need to navigate insurance denials and out of pocket maximums. If we add a more robust social safety net to the equation, you may also not have to worry about childcare and having to stretch yourself thin with work… Would eliminating these battles really not have brought qualitative changes (for the better) for your family?
EDIT: I responded in a way that was not helpful below and I’ve fixed it now…
I would tear off my right arm to have a robust enough safety net to take care of my kids adequately (and thanks to UHC in that situation, I would live thru it!).
You’re the one making a lot of assumptions based on what was originally a shower thought. It’s a nice thought but it’s completely and utterly incorrect in reality.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life.
This isn’t an assumption, it’s a data point that contradicts your hypothetical theory.
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is your assumption that treating mental illness and disabilities will result in the person becoming a productive member of society. This is occasionally true, but much more commonly, the treatment serves to alleviate the more severe symptoms of the condition, without actually curing or fixing the condition.
Healthcare is primarily about minimizing the damage and suffering caused by various physical and mental ailments. It can’t magically transform people into something they’re not.
I don’t know because I’m in the US, but does universal healthcare in other countries cover autism-related therapies and care such as ABA, occupational and speech at the rates recommend by docs (our docs recommended 20+ hours/week - or roughly the cost of $100k/year)? And is that factored into the equation?
I haven’t seen the official modeling, just assumptions around the internet. But back of the napkin math suggests that appropriate autism care alone could be quite high: 1/36 of the 341,500,000 American residents have autism. Assuming 15% need care in the range of $100k, would be somewhere around $138b/year for just autism care. Does that seem in line with what you are thinking? Either way, are you able to point me to some of the modeling you have found? I’d love to learn more about how it tactically works.
Where’s your math coming from? There’s a ton of folks on the spectrum that don’t need assistance at all.
I just estimated that 15% need care. So that would leave a huge number that don’t - you are right.
EDIT: A quick Internet search says that 82% of autistic adults want or get support, and only 16% are fully employed. 🤷
“Want to get support” is not the same as “need 20h of a specialists time each week”
You are right, which is why I used 15%, instead of 82%.
But what do you base those 15% on? Might as well be 1%, or even lower. In the end its just your own intuition, based on nothing. Hell, if they were capable of answering that survey, I don’t think they’d need that much support.
Nothing, back of the napkin math for discussion purposes based on the 2 diagnosisea and doc recommendations we’ve gotten. Totally can adjust if you have a more accurate number.
Fyi ABA is considered highly unethical in the autism community.
Fair, take that piece out of the equation. Our docs still advised us on 20+ hours of therapy, all of which is costly.
Your first mistake is to use US prices as if that’s what the care actually costs.
20+ hours of anything is costly if you are paying the therapists appropriately. The issue is that their work is 1:1 and doesn’t scale easily.
And?
Doesn’t change the fact that US prices are orders of magnitude out of proportion. You simply can’t use it as a yardstick.
Now, if you’re looking at the plain amount of material, manufacturing, infrastructure, and labour required, then you’re making sense.
But it seems you’re making the argument that too many people cost more to care for than they are “worth” in terms of economics, and would be too great a burden on the productivity of the healthy for a universal healthcare system to function.
But that’s not even close to true. Universal healthcare is essentially an attempt at triage on national scale. To apply resources where they do the most good.
In comparison, commercial market healthcare is just less efficient across the board. A universal system is able to provide more care for more people at less cost, even if it isn’t able to do so for everyone in every situation.
No-one is claiming universal healthcare systems save everyone and care for every ailment, every time. The argument is that it’s simply the smarter way to use the resources a country has.
So, you totally hit the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more: It is about maximizing resources for overall good. It is just that some groups may not see a qualitative difference in care.
I’m just doing some simple deductive reasoning. If a person who suffers from a disability receives life changing care and are able to rejoin the workforce you have taken someone who would otherwise cost tax payers and have added an income stream to the tax pool. Similarly you may provide care to people who aren’t necessarily disabled but have no means to get a life changing diagnosis and medication which allows them to complete higher education.
For every person you take out of the prison system and put into the workforce you are freeing up resources while also creating resources.
Man, I wish the hundreds of thousands of dollars of care we got positioned my kids into the workforce. Our reality is that all that while the care did help and make their lives much better - it won’t translate into productivity or self sufficiency. 🙁 I am super worried that will practically mean a universal healthcare system in the US limits disability care because it isn’t deemed as having a good enough ROI.
Thats irrelevant. Your children will still receive care no matter what.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life. And that very concept could risk society’s willingness to pay for any disabled person’s full care under universal healthcare.
You are making lots of false assumptions and I will assume it’s intentional.
No, it is from unfortunate personal experience. Special needs families get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways - ours included. Feel free to IM me about it if you want specific anecdotes. After killing myself to get my kids what they need (navigating insurance denials, waiting lists for specialists, underfunded and confusing government programs, lack of childcare, hitting out of pocket maximums year after year, and taking jobs that leave me exhausted and with little family time to pay for it all), I have a huge defense mechanism for anything that sounds like it can quickly and easily solve this kind of situation - because I’ve been repeatedly shown it is a pipe dream. It doesn’t mean UHC isn’t a noble cause or the right way to go. But the reality is that it probably won’t be much of a qualitative change for families like ours. And it is hard to hear that our experiences and fears are not valid.
I hear where you’re coming from. I can’t even begin to imagine how tired you are after all these hardships. The fact that you’re still writing civil replies to the other person is commendable.
I would like to respectfully say that universal healthcare would have eliminated the need to navigate insurance denials and out of pocket maximums. If we add a more robust social safety net to the equation, you may also not have to worry about childcare and having to stretch yourself thin with work… Would eliminating these battles really not have brought qualitative changes (for the better) for your family?
Thanks for saying that. 🙂
EDIT: I responded in a way that was not helpful below and I’ve fixed it now…
I would tear off my right arm to have a robust enough safety net to take care of my kids adequately (and thanks to UHC in that situation, I would live thru it!).
You’re the one making a lot of assumptions based on what was originally a shower thought. It’s a nice thought but it’s completely and utterly incorrect in reality.
This isn’t an assumption, it’s a data point that contradicts your hypothetical theory.
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is your assumption that treating mental illness and disabilities will result in the person becoming a productive member of society. This is occasionally true, but much more commonly, the treatment serves to alleviate the more severe symptoms of the condition, without actually curing or fixing the condition.
Healthcare is primarily about minimizing the damage and suffering caused by various physical and mental ailments. It can’t magically transform people into something they’re not.
How would a universal healthcare system exclude people?
I’m talking about net benefits. Obviously not everyone can be made whole but sorry for not explaining that in a showerthought.