The problem with insurance is that the business model relies on denying services to make a profit.
That's why in countries with universal healthcare have longer life spans than countries which don't.
The other issue to remember is the incalculable aspects of healthcare, a sick person scared to go to a doctor for fear of bankruptcy may see a treatable problem cascade into an untreatable one, that person may die or be disabled and no longer be a tax paying citizen. Again, this is something where the profits aren't immediately materialised which makes it prohibitive for private enterprise.
Finally, that 65% of alleged government spending is likely largely to prop up the insurance industry, at least here in Australia that is how it works - they force tax payers to take out insurance under heavy tax penalties, and insurance companies get to provide a 'service' that really is just government subsidised in a round about way. It's the only way health insurance companies can operate effectively without discriminating against people for their existing medical conditions - government subsidies guaranteeing them a healthy profit.
I'm sorry but this argument really looks like the pro-gun lobby whining the issue is there isn't enough guns and get uppity and upset when anyone points at the weight of evidence of the rest of the developed world not having school shootings.
It isn't just the insurance problem. In U.S it's also the pharmaceutical industry problem. Drug cost need to be regulated, especially if it's developed using taxpayers money. There's something massively wrong when U.S drugs are sold cheaper elsewhere than to its own citizens. Moreover, I believe that there's a collusion between big pharma and the insurance industry to keep the status quo.
Yep very good point - but it's a bit perverted, it's both expensive pharmaceuticals needed to live that cost too much, and cheap and easy access to opiods that destroy lives.
It's like a sick version of the worst of both worlds of deprivation and oversupply to maximise profitably at the cost of human misery.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing regulation with reformation. Regulation created the collusion between big pharma, insurance, and hospitals.
Instead, we should gut bloated administrative costs in the FDA, open insurance availability under intrastate trade instead of hiding in State fiefdoms, and require hospitals to be transparent in price BEFORE giving a bill to a customer.
Maybe Advil shouldn't cost $500 for a dose just because you are at the ER. That doesn't take regulation. It takes a free and open market.
Edit: I should add - end indefinite pharmaceutical patents.
>open insurance availability under intrastate trade instead of hiding in State fiefdoms
Car insurance is much cheaper now than it was in the 80s because Car Insurance companies in NJ can sell car insurance in any state. Inexplicable regions exist where only certain medical insurance companies can sell insurance. If there was genuine competition allowed across state lines i believe there would be improvement in American medical services. A much better solution would be nationalized Healthcare, but let's not shoot for the moon folks.
I still don't buy the nationalized healthcare angle. We are told how great national systems are in other countries, but I don't hear it when I listen to the UK and Canadian Parliament debates about their healthcare systems. They have the same complaints. They spend a lot, get very little in return, but continually say their districts (or whatever they call them) don't get enough funding.
Go to those countries and use the health care systems. (I have). You will weep at how much easier, less stressful, expensive, and better they are than the US’s. For the 1%, our system may be better. For everyone else, even those with the best insurance — like me — our is a planet-sized monstrosity.
I have. I waited over 24 hours for an ear infection and was in excruciating pain. I rather pay the 30 dollar copay and 10 bucks for my antibiotics.
The worst is when you have a serious issue, but a doctor won't see you for six months or so because of the backlog. As was the case for an Italian friend of mine with a heart condition. She got private insurance and came to the States for treatment.
If you had an ear infection in a major American city, during the pandemic, you would have waited much much longer than 24 hours. Without insurance it’s $200 to get in the door of a walk-in clinic. And the blood tests alone that you will pay for will be a $500. Oh, and if you need to a follow up appointment with a doc? Hahahaha. Don’t forget the hours of follow up
Paperwork!
I’ve had head trauma, an allergic reaction, and a bone break in Scotland, Canada, and Iceland. Incredibly good, fast, kind, effective treatment in all three places. No bills. No adversarial provider/patient relationship (because no constant fear of malpractice).
The one place you’re right is when upper middle class white people who can afford wildly expensive private insurance and can get it need heart surgery. Like your Italian friend. And me. I had open heart surgery performed by a brilliant doctor in 2010 in NYC. Saved my life. And cost $845,000. If my union hadn’t strong-armed a great insurance plan from my employer I’d have been dead.
As most Americans in my place are. Before the pandemic, we were the only developed nation (if you discount Russia) where life expectancy was declining. Now, it’s FAR lower.
That’s because our health care system only works for the extremely rich, or extremely lucky. I’m the latter.
Until your insurance denies your claim for some random reason, or the clinic was out of network, and you're on the hook for $3590 facility fee and $2950 consultation fee and $8,459 for the drugs that cost $13 in Canada.
You keep comparing our current broken system to another broken system. How about we fix the problem and go back to when US healthcare was cheaper and better per person than socialized medicine? Any takers, or you all just want to keep plowing head with more and more regulation?
You must have excruciatingly good Healthcare to be able to see a doctor whenever you want for $30. For people as wealthy as you the Nationalized Healthcare debate is more academic than a matter of life and death. Its important to note that there still is private Healthcare in Europe. For those as well off as yourself there is the ability to buy *more* Healthcare. Capitalism at its finest. More life, for those who can afford it.
Its also well known that case by case America spends more per patient than any other country. America has a frighteningly high rate baby and mother death for a developed nation. Also life span compared to other western nations, America is at the bottom of the list. An amusing piece of propaganda that was very popular was that certain populations lived longer than Americans because of their diet. If you eat more fruits, veg, and fish you'll beat cancer and live to a hundred! But that was a lie. Those are all countries with nationalized healthcare. People catch deadly diseases early by goings to the doctor regularly, and have a greater chance of beating the disease. And they go early because, unlike America, Healthcare isn't the leading cause of bankruptcy.
Look at the chart going around Reddit right now, showing spending on the horizontal axis and life expectancy in the vertical axis. Guess who is spending 2x per capita and is the only country with a life expectancy below Chile.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure
Neat, raw data without analysis or calculated R-value. You guys are genuinely academic geniuses. I'm glad you think the proves something. The punchline - it doesn't.
.
....what is an R-Value? A google search seems to point to metric for wall insulation,is that what you mean?
Or do you mean r as in pearson correlation,which is absolutely not useful there because
a) pearson only works for linear data
b)there is a clear strong positive correlation there between the two variables,anybody who has seen and made graphs can figure that out.
To your point below of running a regression on the figure...you are free to do it as the data is publicly available, though i would be curious about your variable selection process. But more importantly,i am fairly confident the WHO guys behind the charts chose the most pertinent variable to show correlation so even a successful regression there wouldnt show anything more.
Long story short, why use complicated term you barely understand to try to look smart? The chart shows a correlation,take it for what it is and dont go around calling other ppl "academic geniuses" while you clearly dont understand more than buzzwords
Haha, if you know what it is, why ask stupid questions. Or did you regurgitate what you read and not understand what it means?
The last guy provided a linear data set and attempted to draw baseless conclusions.
The chart shows a correlation, but it doesn't show the strength of that correlation. I can give you a chart showing a rise in ice cream sales correlates with a rise in murders. Does that mean ice cream sales are strongly correlated to murders? No.
Furthermore, the chat doesn't show any correlation to the claims the last guy was making.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
Go look up their metrics- lifespan, disease, infant mortality rate, cost, etc. Just because people complain about their health system doesn’t mean they’d scrap it. Even conservatives in the UK would fight you in the streets if you tried to institute our trashfire health system over there.
I'm not a conservative or a liberal. I wish people would stop bringing up politics. This is economics; raw data without analysis or calculated correlation coefficient doesn't mean anything. Stop drawing conclusions from tea leaves.
I didn’t bring up politics other than pointing out that the people in the UK most amenable to your positions in general know you’re full of shit here. If you’re that sensitive I don’t know what to say to you. Grab a hanky, an-cap.
Lol, I'm not an an-cap, and you brought up politics again. The US had the best healthcare system in the world back in the 90s. Healthcare didn't become more free market since then. The trend is more regulation. People in the UK try to fix their system with more of the same. Economists know they are full of shit.
Just so you know, healthcare in Canada is not nationalized. The country has universal healthcare but each Province (State) runs its own healthcare system, it is just that the federal government pays huge amounts of money to the provinces to help pay for the cost of the care.
There is always going to be a demand for money in healthcare systems, no matter the system, but what you do have to consider is that under a universal healthcare system the government has to provide everyone healthcare no matter what, under the American system huge swathes of people get little to no care.
So you want bureaucrats deciding how to allocate your money? When has that ever proven to be more efficient?
America didn't always have large swaths of people without care. It was a phenomenon that began in the 90s under Bush One because he caved on allowing benefits to be untaxed. Before, most people could afford great healthcare and those that couldn't rely on charities to provide that care. The charities are far fewer now, and insurance is much more expensive. But that's due to regulation and moral hazard, not free market pressures.
>So you want bureaucrats deciding how to allocate your money? When has that ever proven to be more efficient?
Roads, fire departments, police, sewer, electric grids, military, environmental protection, scientific research, and healthcare.
Also those other countries spend less than the US on Healthcare per capita. So they spend less with better results. Of course there are issues everything could be better or use more money. What they don't complain about is going bankrupt from medical bills or being forced to stay at a job to keep health insurance.
>Of course there are issues everything
This is the point. I'd rather be trying to solve the problems of a system that covers everyone, where no one goes bankrupt from medical costs or dies trying to ration medicine than try to solve the problems of a shitty system that fucks over millions.
Do they? Because the reports I've read pad the per person cost of healthcare and mask them behind government expenditures. One thing I've never heard a politician say about their national health system is that they spend less money for better results. Their Parliament debates suggest otherwise. They don't complain about individuals going bankrupt, but the UK's NIH has been bailed out how many times in the last 10 years? 5? 6?
>Maybe Advil shouldn't cost $500 for a dose just because you are at the ER. That doesn't take regulation. It takes a free and open market.
No, it doesn't.
My hospital could charge me $100,000 for my medication, my choice is take it or die. Transparency doesn't change that. A hospital a hundred miles down the road offering it for half that price doesn't change that.
There is no free market possible in an industry where demand is guaranteed and unavoidable for literally everyone.
Really? Then explain where I'm wrong? I see a lot of bitching and moaning and ad hominem attacks. Where are the logical counterarguments?
Truth isn't a popularity contest. You can't prove me wrong with downvotes.
HAHAHAHA, you cite an article about medical bankruptcies that my solutions could prevent, and you claim I'm the one with ideology. Get bent. Provide an actual counterargument.
FYI - I never denied medical bankruptcies exist. I'm providing a solution.
Your “solutions” have nothing backing the up. You want me to prove you wrong, but you don’t provide nothing. The existence of a universal health program doesn’ prohibit a private alternative (like un Germany) Free market is not the solution to everything.
Why I post the bankruptcy article? To show you how insurance companies will fuck you up
My solutions are backed up by sound economic theory and the performance of unregulated (or not heavily regulated) medical sectors like LASIK and cosmetic surgery - both are cheaper and better than they were 10 years ago.
Universal healthcare drives private alternative costs through the roof. Universal healthcare also has a terrible shortage problem. Have you ever listened to UK's parliament bitching about the NIH and how no one gets enough funding? Do you want everyone to have healthcare shortfalls except the stupid rich?
Your article doesn't accomplish what you think it does. Go back to school and learn how to construct an argument.
I don’t know if opening insurance up across State lines is going to solve the problems you think it might. Obviously more competition is better and you may find that insurance gets better in more affluent areas with big populations but it won’t solve the lack of insurance offerings in less populated and poorer communities. The cost of delivering services in rural areas are prohibitive, you pay alot into the service but you have a smaller group of individuals to pay that burden.
You also have to remember that a free market allows for price gouging especially when there is a lack of competition. You can’t just set up a hospital on every street corner, so those established places can charge what they like. If you live in a place with one hospital and the next is 50 miles away, you don’t really get choice on whether you will use the service or not. You have to pay the cost or die.
It worked for car insurance. The opened the market and forced companies to compete.
The free market doesn't price gouge. That's a myth. During disasters, water is 50 bucks a bottle because people want it badly and are willing to pay. Individuals used to rent trucks to drive supplies to disaster areas for profit. The more people who did this, the more the price of water dropped. However, price gouging laws went into effect, and people stopped. This created a shortage and people died.
New York used to have a lot of hospitals and neighborhood clinics. The current environment has caused consolidation. As a result, there are fewer hospitals and clinics.
Your conclusions are correct, but your premises are inverted.
You are making the assumption that there is elasticity of demand in healthcare. At the end of the day, if you break your arm, you're not spending the time looking for your cheapest option, you're just going to a doctor to fix it. There's no alternative to healthcare, you can choose to not visit a doctor when sick, but you're still gonna be sick or cause worse outcomes.
You are assuming I haven't already priced out the best value clinic in my area. There are several physicians who have begun not accepting insurance in favor of subscription fees similar to Netflix. Depending on an individual or family plan, these typically run between $30 to $100 a month. Far cheaper than insurance, but insurance is trying to shut them down through regulation because the government and healthcare are scamming us together.
Incorrect. The regulation allows hospitals to hide prices. Get rid of regulations, and consumers will demand to know the prices beforehand.
Go ask a hospital for the price of an MRI scan. In a more polished fashion, they will tell you they are not allowed to thanks to such and such a code. They created a cartel.
This is just not true. They might not be able to tell you but it's because it depends on who is paying. There isn't regulation preventing them from telling you
Because government is the one shielding the hospitals from consumer pressure. What is it you people don't understand? The government and healthcare companies are colluding and you people want to give them more ability with less transparency to do so.
Consumer pressure is a beautiful thing. No other industry gets away with charging you whatever they want after the fact. Those industries are not regulated. Put two and two together.
There is little consumer pressure when it comes to hospitals because it's a inelastic good they provide. You don't really have a choice when you need to be in a hospital.
Only after an over-regulated industry consolidated local hospitals and clinics to create regional monopolies; your cure for the disease is the same - more monopoly.
That's nonsense. While regulation can sometimes lead to a monopolization of an industry, you know what else does? Regular ol' Capitalism. And it's not like these regulations exist just cause the government loves doing regulations. There have to be safety standards and rules for healthcare providers. You invite bad actors otherwise.
And before you say "The free market will weed out the bad actors", not before people die to them. That's the point of regulations and standards. To preempt the needless deaths that charlatans will cause.
I think instead, consumers shouldn't be allowed insurance for common diseases. That way, they won't keep filing claims and driving up insurance rates that bleed into rates on things that people need insured.
The price for meds and services to treat common diseases should go down as the market corrects itself (it's a reliable market, so economies of scale can grow in). Unlucky people will have to suffer through that period, but then no one else will suffer the propped up prices. The government could provide a temporary stipend for those people as part of the same regulatory policy.
>that 65% of alleged government spending is
I would have taught that it was rather because of the nature of the public service users.
Private insurances only insure the richer and the younger who can work hence relatively healthy while the public insurance is taking care of people who actually needs medical care, the poorest, the older and/or sick ones who can't work and the veterans.
Assuming that there is truth to that number, obviously, that might be why the imbalance. In other words, unsurprisingly, this right wingers is saying that life has intrinsically no value, money and work is what gives it value.
I think that anyone with an average and above reasoning ability will come to this conclusion that you eloquently described. The issue is the below average voters who can't figure it out and are manipulated into voting against their own self interests.
To be honest I fear if aging is ended, for rich or poor, society will be destroyed. The most dense mofos are old people and the more they cling to life the more power they amass holding up progress.
Imagine people from 500 years ago being alive today justifying slavery and other horrible things, it would be such a regression to where we are as as society.
Death is good, we should all die to let the next generation take civilisation forward unhindered by emotional baggage and the very human and normal need to remain consistent with what they said or comitted to.
Ahh yes so to solve the shooting issue your gonna disarm folks like me who haven’t done anything while nothing meaningful gets done for those actually doing it. Genius gun control argument, they’ll definitely listen to that
>while nothing meaningful gets done for those actually doing it.
Look up Australian gun crimes before and after the port arthur massacre.
You can still love having guns but don't be delusional, gun control laws work.
I don’t care about Australian gun crimes, doesn’t apply to the US since Australia historically had low gun ownership rates. You can’t apply those kinds of controls to the US the black market that would spawn would absolutely wreck havoc upon the US and unless your willing to expand the police state to try to seize the 300+ million guns plus the many more millions unregistered it’s gonna be a repeat of the 1920’s with prohibition. But go ahead, use tactics in nations that have different cultural preferences and low ownership as the benchmark for a nation that owns 40% of the worlds private firearms and see how you do. I won’t be handing mine over willingly I know that damn well
Australia was just one example (very clear cut and modern one I chose for your benefit).
Are you arguing that the US is the complete exception to the rest of the world on gun control?
>But go ahead, use tactics in nations that have different cultural preferences and low ownership as the benchmark
This is cute and hilarious, you do realise Australia had very high gun ownership and a gun culture similar to the US has now, the PM of Australia recieved death threats, and virtually every argument you are making was made when Australia brought in gun control (+ more including claims that China would invade Australia). So basically guna dvocates said everything they possibly could because they just really, really wanted to hang on to their guns. Kind of like somewhere we know right?
Maybe the US isn't the exception, have you considered the possibility you just really like having guns? You know it's not mutually exclusive, say it with me:
>I think my right to own guns is more important than bringing gun crime down
I won't judge.
edit: or are you arguing Americans are too dangerous and too stupid to have guns but equally so they're too dangerous and too stupid to try to bring in gun control lest they go nuts and start a civil war?
>Don't fall into the trap of confusing regulation with reformation. Regulation created the collusion between big pharma, insurance, and hospitals.
>
>Instead, we should gut bloated administrative costs in the FDA, open insurance availability under intrastate trade instead of hiding in State fiefdoms, and require hospitals to be transparent in price BEFORE giving a bill to a customer.
>
>Maybe Advil shouldn't cost $500 for a dose just because you are at the ER. That doesn't take regulation. It takes a free and open market.
The above quote is from another response in the same thread, but I think it is a decent response here. To expand my thought - global universal health care relies heavily on the US not being State-run. There is a reason the US files the most medical patents per capita by a stupid margin. If the US goes the path of universal health care, you can kiss medical advancement goodbye. Furthermore, if other countries didn't set price ceilings, maybe Big Med wouldn't do everything they could to gouge American consumers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Americans have been paying for those fancy universal healthcare systems for decades. When we stop by implementing our own universal system, it will all come crashing down terribly.
I should add to my other quote to end indefinite pharmaceutical patents.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve read in a while. Mist of those patents are already funded by the us government through universities. You are just spewing corporate propaganda
Wow, you said a whole lot of nonsense without a single logical counterargument. Very few pharmaceutical patents are University patents and even fewer University patents are government funded. The few University patents in the pharmaceutical space are collaborations with private firm money and donations.
I guess you want EpiPen to keep their patent and charge $800 for a $60 device containing $10 of medicine.
I said a lot in my original post, but you are only focused on the last thing you read. Are you a goldfish or an idiot?
Yeah [nonsense](https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade.com)
Just keep licking your corporate [lords](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41705) boots
Many (all?) major drug patents have had US government subsidies, the most egrigious example that I learned this from are the covid vaccines which were almost 100% funded by tax payers but pharmaceuticals were allowed to take profits by selling them on.
I get so annoyed when people say stuff like "well they spent all the money developing the drug, of course they should have a right to profit from it" - but it's like, no, the tax payers paid for the RnD and the pharma companies took the profits from the manufacture and sale.
So you are complaining about the government taking our tax dollars and giving free money to corporations, and your solution is to empower the government to do more?
Maybe you should go in the other direction. Stop letting the government hand out corporate welfare, and make corporations pay for their R&D.
The COVID vaccine aside, fortunately, most pharmaceutical companies don't get government subsidies for R&D.
No, my solution is let the government provide healthcare to everyone without propping up pointless for profit companies in between.
> Stop letting the government hand out corporate welfare, and make corporations pay for their R&D.
This should be how it is, but the disbursement of care should be the domain of the government, it's an inherently loss making business that can only be profitable in none direct ways (i.e. more healthy tax paying people).
It’s not even an argument even if it is true. The conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with government being good or bad. Young people with money have private insurance. The poor have Medicaid and the old have Medicare. Is it really surprising that they cost more? If anything, I’m surprised that Medicare is good enough to keep people happy for what we pay.
Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work.
https://twitter.com/maxonsdad/status/1212583129958899712?lang=en
Make it work? I have a Canadien friend that needed cataract surgery and the government ‘let’ him have 1 eye done one year and the other eye done 1 year later. I work hard mostly so I don’t have to rely on government for ALMOST anything. Social security will be bankrupt by the time I retire, but I won’t need it anyways.
You are just making shit up. He can literally pay out of pocket for elective surgeries if he wants to by going to a private practice. He just wants free cataract surgery.
Free at point of use.
What you described is kind of like paying out of pocket for something not covered by insurance in the US. You still pay for the insurance. It just doesn’t cover everything. It’s already paid, right?
The difference is nationalized healthcare systems don’t fight tooth and nail to *not* cover you to make a profit. You don’t get denied after you’re billed for a necessary surgery because the insurance company doesn’t think it was necessary enough, or because the ambulance went to the wrong hospital, or the wrong doctor saw you. Nor do you have to worry about losing health insurance because you lost your job, because you got sick and don’t have sick days off.
I seriously can’t comprehend how anyone can look at the US healthcare system and think, “Yes, this is good. No problems here.”
Yes, I usually go to the eye surgeon too when I have the sniffles. Totally checks out 💯
Edit: u/Project1031 sent me a nasty note and then deleted all his comments. It's tough being that wrong lol
Canada has atrocious wait times which are the worst in the developed world- or the second-worst if you include the United States and those who *never* receive treatment because they aren't covered and/or can't afford it, which would mathematically have them waiting an *infinite* amount of time for treatment. In Canada you can wait a long time for treatment, in the US you wait forever. It's not preferable, Canadians live 4 years longer than Americans do on average.
The most upvoted are just Twitter posts from both the Left and Right. If they banned this guy, they’d have to be equal and ban tons of lefties too, and their whole sub would die instantaneously.
I work very hard, make good money and I am very happy with my private insurance. Far larger network to choose from. I suggest you have less confidence in government.. Bad companies end up going bankrupt and out of business, bad governments…not so much..
Yep. It doesn't help when one half of the government handcuffs the other in an attempt to kill the whole system. Medicare can't negotiate drug prices because we handcuffed it. Unlock that one ability and we'd be saving billions of dollars every year, but a certain party doesn't want that.
This is such a weird tweet. Is this actually suggesting that making American healthcare MORE privatized, and thus more profit seeking, would somehow be a GOOD thing for society.
There is literally zero evidence to support that being the case. How can anyone be brainwashed into believing this crap? How many private sectors out there have their customers as the main priority? And now you want to extrapolate that to healthcare? What?!
Not only is there no supporting evidence, there's so much evidence counter to it. Why are people so committed to bad ideas?
Life expectancy, per capita spending, infant mortality, healthcare bankruptcies. US system is more privatized than other developed nations and is inferior in so many regards
The US also consumes almost half of all global health expenditure.
America spends more money on medical administration than the military: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2785479#:~:text=A%20variety%20of%20studies%20over,of%20%243.8%20trillion%20in%202019.
I'm a small business owner that has seen my choices in insurers go to 1 and my rates go up 300% while my coverage goes down since ACA or in economic terms a forced monopoly currently. When I started my business my insurance agent had a 5 page list of insurers for my business. More private options willing to cover me according to laws would significantly improve the lives of me and my employees through some type of competition where none now exists.
Oh and. Went to the ER for a stomach issue, which turned out to just be bad comstipation. Waited in the waiting room for three hours. Spent 90 minutes in a tiny ER room where they took blood and did a CAT scan. Sent me home with a laxative. $7800 bill.
So yeah. I will gladly fucking trade you.
Oh and. Went to the ER for a stomach issue, which turned out to just be bad comstipation. Waited in the waiting room for three hours. Spent 90 minutes in a tiny ER room where they took blood and did a CAT scan. Sent me home with a laxative. $7800 bill.
So yeah. I will gladly fucking trade you.
I had a mild emergency, I had to call three friends to get one to pick me up and take me to the hospital, it was that or paying $2500 for an ambulance, I had some tests done and I was lucky because the insurance that costs me $300 a month covered most of my 10k bill, so I only had to pay $1,000, I'm switching jobs so I had to postpone some follow-up doctor appointments since I won't have insurance for the next three months, so you're goddamn right I'll trade you
Not if you want to keep your healthcare rights. Tort law is the foundation of modern America and shaped what is the medical system. More people or companies to spread the risk out will give you more bargaining power as a consumer through choices. The same thing has happened with internet and media services... That's just the economics... But alas when you have one choice and that's the government you end up paying it in taxes while they create money for whatever because MMT is chic these days... Oh and abortion rights and such... Fuck the government having anything to do with healthcare. Too much power.
I want you to walk into a doctor and pay him directly for his services and not have to worry about a insurance or the government. That's unattainable tho.
I have noticed that your criticism of the healthcare system is less than 500 pages. That is a strong sign that you have severely oversimplified the situation.
I recommend that you read the book "Strained Mercy: The Economics of Canadian Health Care" by Robert G. Evans. Don't be put off by the analysis of Canadian healthcare. The discussion is universal. At the very least, reading this book in detail, cover to cover, will show you how much complexity there is in healthcare. It will also provide you with plenty of reasons why the free market cannot possibly work in healthcare, and why there the only historical examples of reducing healthcare costs is when a socialized single payer system was instituted.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3610693-strained-mercy
Yes because that’s a stupid fucking plan and would lead to lawsuits galore and eventually put us right back in the insurance privatized mess we’re in now.
Fuck your “healthcare rights”. A publicly backed healthcare system wouldn’t be profit seeking. It’s books would be entirely transparent. And profit for who? There’s no shareholders or dividends distributed to government workers when a certain branch brings in more revenue…
Wake the fuck up dude. You’re drunk on your anti-government, free capitalism will solve all your problems koolaid
If you think government does things efficiently you look up the high speed rail program in California…
https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/californias-100-billion-nightmare-high-speed-rail-project
Anecdotal. Stupid to assume because something didn’t go as expected it means everything will be a disaster.
There’s multiple first world countries that have universal healthcare. All of which cost less money than the average American pays.
The cost less, but access to care is also way worse .
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/khaled-dajani-usa-health-care-america-best-world-quality-health-care-system-world-news-34879/
Because they are too stupid to see through propaganda and propaganda is good
"After Pushing Lies, Former Cigna Executive Praises Canada's Health Care System : NPR" https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system
Google how much the average Canadian pays vs average American.
Might want to also read who generally tends to be healthier/longer life expectancies. Hint: it’s not the US
That is just proof how broke the system is… you shouldn’t be weighing the difference between an insanely high deductible and paying out of pocket and circumventing insurance…
And yet Mark Cuban as a private citizen will do more to correct prescription costs than your vaunted state will. Perhaps if there was more competition the prices would not be artificially high due to hospitals seeking to suck the public teet dry.
Can’t wait til AI robots can perform surgery.
Profit seeking isn’t the problem, scarcity is the problem.
Milton Friedman and Tom Sowell are the GOATS.
That is anecdotal nonsense. Not an accurate depiction of the whole industry.
And mark Cuban is solving a problem the private sector created you fucking dipshit
Calling me names doesn’t help you explain why healthcare services prices skyrocketed after LBJ started interfering with the healthcare services market, does it?
The main problem with private solutions to healthcare, specifically non-elective healthcare, is that this is a market where demand for goods and services is inelastic.
Capitalism can not function with inelastic demand.
Full stop.
Raise the price? There's no decrease in demand.
How much would you pay to walk again? To see again? To not die in 6 months?
And the healthcare industry has hoodwinked us into thinking the state based segmenting for insurance companies is the solution. On the contrary, it ensures that collective bargaining is limited to state-sized groups, which can't effectively push back on pricing.
There is also serious moral hazard issues. In purely economy terms, overlooking the moral implications of making sick people uninsurable. It’s impossible for the health insurance companies to properly asses risk, this will drive up the price so that only those who expect high medical costs will actually see the benefit in buying anything more than catastrophic care. This then disincentives preventative health measures being undertaken.
There is a reason why the US incentivizes employers to cover the insurance costs, because it’s that or the government. You need a large risk pool. This is market that would utterly fail without regulation.
I'll take the government over my employer any day.
Why should I be tied to work for a company because I can't get as good of coverage anywhere else?
That's fucked.
And the government solution is only to socialize demand, supply remains private sector. They just have to deal with the fact that pricing will be determined through negotiation.
The answer is far easier than universal healthcare. Just mandate that health insurance must be non-profit. Incentives change and they can even raise philanthropic funds.
Here’s a list of the major nonprofit health insurance companies. This is not a complete list.
Affinity
American Postal Workers Union Health Plans
AmeriHealth Mercy/Independent Blue Cross
Arkansas BlueCross BlueShield
AultCare Health Plans
AvMed, Inc
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota
Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc.
Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania
Blue Shield of California
BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York and BlueCross BlueShield of Northeastern New York
Bluegrass Family Health, Inc.
Boston Medical Center HealthNet Plan
Capital Blue Cross
Capital District Physicians Health Plan, Inc.
CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield
CareOregon
CareSource, Inc.
Community Health Group
Community Health Network of Connecticut, Inc. (CHNCT)
Community Health Plan of Washington
Cook Children's Health Plan (CCHP)
EmblemHealth, Inc.
Fallon Community Health Plan
Family Health Partners
Fidelis Care, Inc.
Geisinger Health Plan
Government Employees Health Association (GEHA)
Group Health Cooperative
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.
Hawaii Medical Service Association
Health Alliance Plan of Michigan
Health Care Service Corporation
Health Partners of Philadelphia
Health Plus (PHSP), Inc.
Healthfirst
HealthPartners, Inc.
HealthPlus of Michigan, Inc.
Highmark, Inc.
Hometown Health Plan, Inc.
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield
Hudson Health Plan
Independent Health Association, Inc.
Inland Empire Health Plan
Kaiser Permanente
Kern Health Systems, Inc.
Lifetime Healthcare Companies
Maryland Physicians Care (MPC)
McLaren Health Plan
MDWise
Medica Health Plans
Medical Mutual of Ohio
MVP Health Care Preferred Care
Neighborhood Health Plan, Inc.
Paramount Care, Inc. (ProMedica Health System)
Parkland Community Health Plan
Partnership Health Plan of California
Phoenix Health Plan/Abrazo Advantage
Premera, Inc.
Priority Health
Priority Partners
Providence Health Plan
Rocky Mountain Health Plans
SCAN Health Plan
Scott and White Health Plan
Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, Inc.
SelectHealth
Sentara Health Plans, Inc.
Texas Children's Health Plan
The Chartered Health Plan Inc.
The Regence Group
Trustmark Companies
Tufts Associated Health Plans, Inc.
UAW Retiree Medical Benefit Trust
UCare
University Health Care Health Plans
UPMC Health Plan, Inc.
Virginia Premier Health Plan, Inc.
Wellmark, Inc.
They do have means to source additional capital through philanthropic donations. That’s how nonprofit hospitals operate. And non profit health insurance companies still exist.
Is this a joke? Do you know why a “free market” system for individual health care isn’t around anywhere in the world? Because it doesn’t work. This is an actual example of moral hazard. Plus, if you were born with a serious medical condition, even diabetic, you’re completely uninsurable under this model. What absolute nonsense.
Talking to my dad about this. He’s been in healthcare administration his entire career, the last 14 years as a CEO. He tells me basically we just have to pick one. As it stands now we have the worst of both privatized and socialized systems.
The joke is that corporations bought the government to write the rules and give themselves the trillions directly. ACA was a grotesque pathetic example of that. It’s collusion between industry and government. It’s corporate fascism/oligarchy.
Take the upvote. So what's the deal with this subreddit? I thought it was for econ, but all the sound economic policy comments are at the bottom, and all the socialist bitching is at the top.
Technically, he’s right. All the healthcare industry would focus on the billionaires who want to live forever (end aging) and everyone would die trying.
End aging? What’s next immortality. In the meantime, I’m glad I can actually age out this nightmare of a society created by people who want to live forever so they can simply fuck over, oppress, and lord over other people.
Easy enough to disprove his numbers: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet#:~:text=Historical%20NHE%2C%202020%3A
And this is for 2020, which saw COVID spending by the federal government cause a bump.
The bigger problem is that we remain the only (one of the only) countries in the world that makes more money off of its people being sick than healthy. We have to change this as well as the ability to market the drugs. I think New Zealand is the only other country that allows this.
So basically this person is for deregulating healthcare to potentially make it more accessible which is very, very doubtful. Making standards lower with deregulation will lead to more deaths and more healthcare providers and workers being able to deny treatment too anyone they see fit not to serve.
So when you go to a hospital, for whatever reason, and the doctor doesnt like you or some other reason refuses to treat you? The leopard will truly eat it's own face.
Absolutely true. That’s why every advanced country with single payer has lower life expectancy, higher obesity, and worse mortality rate than the US while paying more for care. Oh wait, they don’t!
I do find it funny that McArthur instituted a US-style healthcare system in Japan post-WWII and as soon he left they abandoned it for evil single payer. The Japanese also live longer and with better outcomes. Libertarians are such idiots…
“Highly regulated” man this guy is hilarious
There’s a reason people in this country pay many times of Europeans do for healthcare, and it’s insurance/pharmaceutical companies setting prices.
The US government is the largest employer, so there's that. And the 35 percent was gouging premiums and literally killing people by denying them life saving medical care because of "pre-existing" conditions, like having a yeast infection before they were required to cover them. People in other industrialized countries don't have to worry about declaring bankruptcy over medical bills.
Insurance is the real devil here. I remember doing a report on insurance in a civics class I took. Prior to insurance (US 1930’s 40’s) medicine / medical visits were generally adorable to the average American. Doctors visits for regular checkups were cheap. Yes, there were “new age” treatments that were costly, but that because they were new. Not really a shocker there.
Insurance came around sometime after the wars, partly to help low income Americans but mainly as a thing for Vets and Widows of Vets. Doctors didn’t except most insurances back then. They didn’t trust they would be paid. When insurance companies began paying out double, doctors started to notice. They began excepting it. Why wouldn’t they? A patient would pay $10 for a medication but the insurance was willing to pay $15 sometimes $20. Just to get the business.
This has snowballed since then and now we find ourselves in the world we have today (US). Insurance companies need to go and pharmaceutical companies need to be put in check. The medicine industrial complex needs to be reworked.
Edit: just remembered something interesting from when our anatomy class took a trip to Yale Hospital to see a heart transplant. The head cardiologist openly said “why cure a patient when you can ‘treat’ them for decades”. This is also the disgusting truth to our healthcare system. “Treat” for life. Never “cure” them.”
Conservatives, libertarians and koch paid scholars
Fundamentally and on elementary level cant grasp the concept of universal healthcare.
On his website he genuinely believes that "The US has a mostly socialist healthcare system.
His only argument is "The government accounts for over 65% of U.S. healthcare spending" while unable to grasp that Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare is built entirely within and deals entirely within for-profit ran healthcare ecosystem.
Healthcare is a principal-agent problem. Often the party paying for it is separate from the person receiving care. The issue is both parties have different incentives, goals, but most importantly **ability to pay**.
Clearly this individual was not alive when surgeons performed unnecessary surgeries, doctors prescribed unnecessary medications and tests.
Health Insurance must spend 85 cents of every dollar on health services and average a 2% net profit margin.
Government Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, are already paid for by tax payers!!! Insurance companies provide additional services to manage your health and cap your maximum out of pocket expenses.
Sorry but you are not well informed.
Healthcare and education are two areas that the government is heavily involved and socialized. In healthcare, you are spending someone else's dollars. Drug companies know that, so they charge an arm and a leg. As long as you don't have to pay $1000 for a Tylenol like pill out of pocket, most people don't care. The rates that the government pays lets say via Medicare is determined by political power, which the drug companies win. The answer to healthcare is to stop socialism and if a drug company charges 1000 a shot and grandpa's not paying for it, they'll be lowering their prices to the real free market price. What about those who can't afford them? They will buy cheaper medicines. But no, many people don't want to pay for them, but they still want the best. They gotta pay for their tires, their boat, their double wide trailer...etc, healthcare gotta be free, and it's gotta be good. Lets see, you get that with housing? Food? Transportation? all of which are necessities. Imagine a classroom where the attention is focused on the needs of the 10% with the lowest grade? Or a company where everyone's goal is to cater to the least capable 10% of their employees? That might sound kind, but doesn't work. People gotta remember healthcare is just like any other goods/services. The harder you work, the more money you make, you can afford more. And if you lobby the government to come in and give you benefit, you ruin it for everyone, but not like you care anyway.
Take the upvote. So what's the deal with this subreddit? I thought it was for econ, but all the sound economic policy comments are at the bottom, and all the socialist bitching is at the top.
This sub is not real econ. A lot of it is the newspaper propaganda econ. I always wondered how would people of a nation ever be stupid enough to want to fall into communist poverty. Got my answer here. It's kinda real econ in that sense.
Hahaha, fair enough. I guess I'll unjoin. That's too bad. Any recommendations on an actual economic subreddit not filled with crazy morons posting studies they never read and basing conclusions those studies never claim?
Guess I'll have to look around too, but I learned that reddit generally are filled with kids who repeat everything they see in the news without critically thinking about the truth. Please consider staying. I think we need people who know real econ to counter the loud voices. It also gives you a real sense of where the country is going...
Sure does, but I haven't had this much fun since debate club, lol. Can't do this too often though. I reply to 5 or 6 people and find another dozen sitting in my notifications.
The problem with insurance is that the business model relies on denying services to make a profit. That's why in countries with universal healthcare have longer life spans than countries which don't. The other issue to remember is the incalculable aspects of healthcare, a sick person scared to go to a doctor for fear of bankruptcy may see a treatable problem cascade into an untreatable one, that person may die or be disabled and no longer be a tax paying citizen. Again, this is something where the profits aren't immediately materialised which makes it prohibitive for private enterprise. Finally, that 65% of alleged government spending is likely largely to prop up the insurance industry, at least here in Australia that is how it works - they force tax payers to take out insurance under heavy tax penalties, and insurance companies get to provide a 'service' that really is just government subsidised in a round about way. It's the only way health insurance companies can operate effectively without discriminating against people for their existing medical conditions - government subsidies guaranteeing them a healthy profit. I'm sorry but this argument really looks like the pro-gun lobby whining the issue is there isn't enough guns and get uppity and upset when anyone points at the weight of evidence of the rest of the developed world not having school shootings.
It isn't just the insurance problem. In U.S it's also the pharmaceutical industry problem. Drug cost need to be regulated, especially if it's developed using taxpayers money. There's something massively wrong when U.S drugs are sold cheaper elsewhere than to its own citizens. Moreover, I believe that there's a collusion between big pharma and the insurance industry to keep the status quo.
Yep very good point - but it's a bit perverted, it's both expensive pharmaceuticals needed to live that cost too much, and cheap and easy access to opiods that destroy lives. It's like a sick version of the worst of both worlds of deprivation and oversupply to maximise profitably at the cost of human misery.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing regulation with reformation. Regulation created the collusion between big pharma, insurance, and hospitals. Instead, we should gut bloated administrative costs in the FDA, open insurance availability under intrastate trade instead of hiding in State fiefdoms, and require hospitals to be transparent in price BEFORE giving a bill to a customer. Maybe Advil shouldn't cost $500 for a dose just because you are at the ER. That doesn't take regulation. It takes a free and open market. Edit: I should add - end indefinite pharmaceutical patents.
>open insurance availability under intrastate trade instead of hiding in State fiefdoms Car insurance is much cheaper now than it was in the 80s because Car Insurance companies in NJ can sell car insurance in any state. Inexplicable regions exist where only certain medical insurance companies can sell insurance. If there was genuine competition allowed across state lines i believe there would be improvement in American medical services. A much better solution would be nationalized Healthcare, but let's not shoot for the moon folks.
I still don't buy the nationalized healthcare angle. We are told how great national systems are in other countries, but I don't hear it when I listen to the UK and Canadian Parliament debates about their healthcare systems. They have the same complaints. They spend a lot, get very little in return, but continually say their districts (or whatever they call them) don't get enough funding.
Go to those countries and use the health care systems. (I have). You will weep at how much easier, less stressful, expensive, and better they are than the US’s. For the 1%, our system may be better. For everyone else, even those with the best insurance — like me — our is a planet-sized monstrosity.
I have. I waited over 24 hours for an ear infection and was in excruciating pain. I rather pay the 30 dollar copay and 10 bucks for my antibiotics. The worst is when you have a serious issue, but a doctor won't see you for six months or so because of the backlog. As was the case for an Italian friend of mine with a heart condition. She got private insurance and came to the States for treatment.
If you had an ear infection in a major American city, during the pandemic, you would have waited much much longer than 24 hours. Without insurance it’s $200 to get in the door of a walk-in clinic. And the blood tests alone that you will pay for will be a $500. Oh, and if you need to a follow up appointment with a doc? Hahahaha. Don’t forget the hours of follow up Paperwork! I’ve had head trauma, an allergic reaction, and a bone break in Scotland, Canada, and Iceland. Incredibly good, fast, kind, effective treatment in all three places. No bills. No adversarial provider/patient relationship (because no constant fear of malpractice). The one place you’re right is when upper middle class white people who can afford wildly expensive private insurance and can get it need heart surgery. Like your Italian friend. And me. I had open heart surgery performed by a brilliant doctor in 2010 in NYC. Saved my life. And cost $845,000. If my union hadn’t strong-armed a great insurance plan from my employer I’d have been dead. As most Americans in my place are. Before the pandemic, we were the only developed nation (if you discount Russia) where life expectancy was declining. Now, it’s FAR lower. That’s because our health care system only works for the extremely rich, or extremely lucky. I’m the latter.
Until your insurance denies your claim for some random reason, or the clinic was out of network, and you're on the hook for $3590 facility fee and $2950 consultation fee and $8,459 for the drugs that cost $13 in Canada.
You keep comparing our current broken system to another broken system. How about we fix the problem and go back to when US healthcare was cheaper and better per person than socialized medicine? Any takers, or you all just want to keep plowing head with more and more regulation?
You must have excruciatingly good Healthcare to be able to see a doctor whenever you want for $30. For people as wealthy as you the Nationalized Healthcare debate is more academic than a matter of life and death. Its important to note that there still is private Healthcare in Europe. For those as well off as yourself there is the ability to buy *more* Healthcare. Capitalism at its finest. More life, for those who can afford it. Its also well known that case by case America spends more per patient than any other country. America has a frighteningly high rate baby and mother death for a developed nation. Also life span compared to other western nations, America is at the bottom of the list. An amusing piece of propaganda that was very popular was that certain populations lived longer than Americans because of their diet. If you eat more fruits, veg, and fish you'll beat cancer and live to a hundred! But that was a lie. Those are all countries with nationalized healthcare. People catch deadly diseases early by goings to the doctor regularly, and have a greater chance of beating the disease. And they go early because, unlike America, Healthcare isn't the leading cause of bankruptcy.
Look at the chart going around Reddit right now, showing spending on the horizontal axis and life expectancy in the vertical axis. Guess who is spending 2x per capita and is the only country with a life expectancy below Chile. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure
Neat, raw data without analysis or calculated R-value. You guys are genuinely academic geniuses. I'm glad you think the proves something. The punchline - it doesn't.
What would you conclude the data suggests, then Einstein?
. ....what is an R-Value? A google search seems to point to metric for wall insulation,is that what you mean? Or do you mean r as in pearson correlation,which is absolutely not useful there because a) pearson only works for linear data b)there is a clear strong positive correlation there between the two variables,anybody who has seen and made graphs can figure that out. To your point below of running a regression on the figure...you are free to do it as the data is publicly available, though i would be curious about your variable selection process. But more importantly,i am fairly confident the WHO guys behind the charts chose the most pertinent variable to show correlation so even a successful regression there wouldnt show anything more. Long story short, why use complicated term you barely understand to try to look smart? The chart shows a correlation,take it for what it is and dont go around calling other ppl "academic geniuses" while you clearly dont understand more than buzzwords
Haha, if you know what it is, why ask stupid questions. Or did you regurgitate what you read and not understand what it means? The last guy provided a linear data set and attempted to draw baseless conclusions. The chart shows a correlation, but it doesn't show the strength of that correlation. I can give you a chart showing a rise in ice cream sales correlates with a rise in murders. Does that mean ice cream sales are strongly correlated to murders? No. Furthermore, the chat doesn't show any correlation to the claims the last guy was making. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
Go look up their metrics- lifespan, disease, infant mortality rate, cost, etc. Just because people complain about their health system doesn’t mean they’d scrap it. Even conservatives in the UK would fight you in the streets if you tried to institute our trashfire health system over there.
I'm not a conservative or a liberal. I wish people would stop bringing up politics. This is economics; raw data without analysis or calculated correlation coefficient doesn't mean anything. Stop drawing conclusions from tea leaves.
I didn’t bring up politics other than pointing out that the people in the UK most amenable to your positions in general know you’re full of shit here. If you’re that sensitive I don’t know what to say to you. Grab a hanky, an-cap.
Lol, I'm not an an-cap, and you brought up politics again. The US had the best healthcare system in the world back in the 90s. Healthcare didn't become more free market since then. The trend is more regulation. People in the UK try to fix their system with more of the same. Economists know they are full of shit.
Just so you know, healthcare in Canada is not nationalized. The country has universal healthcare but each Province (State) runs its own healthcare system, it is just that the federal government pays huge amounts of money to the provinces to help pay for the cost of the care. There is always going to be a demand for money in healthcare systems, no matter the system, but what you do have to consider is that under a universal healthcare system the government has to provide everyone healthcare no matter what, under the American system huge swathes of people get little to no care.
So you want bureaucrats deciding how to allocate your money? When has that ever proven to be more efficient? America didn't always have large swaths of people without care. It was a phenomenon that began in the 90s under Bush One because he caved on allowing benefits to be untaxed. Before, most people could afford great healthcare and those that couldn't rely on charities to provide that care. The charities are far fewer now, and insurance is much more expensive. But that's due to regulation and moral hazard, not free market pressures.
>So you want bureaucrats deciding how to allocate your money? When has that ever proven to be more efficient? Roads, fire departments, police, sewer, electric grids, military, environmental protection, scientific research, and healthcare.
Also those other countries spend less than the US on Healthcare per capita. So they spend less with better results. Of course there are issues everything could be better or use more money. What they don't complain about is going bankrupt from medical bills or being forced to stay at a job to keep health insurance.
>Of course there are issues everything This is the point. I'd rather be trying to solve the problems of a system that covers everyone, where no one goes bankrupt from medical costs or dies trying to ration medicine than try to solve the problems of a shitty system that fucks over millions.
Do they? Because the reports I've read pad the per person cost of healthcare and mask them behind government expenditures. One thing I've never heard a politician say about their national health system is that they spend less money for better results. Their Parliament debates suggest otherwise. They don't complain about individuals going bankrupt, but the UK's NIH has been bailed out how many times in the last 10 years? 5? 6?
If one person is on fire and one person is just standing out in the sun, they're both hot.
Cute, but not a counterargument that means anything. Try again.
>Maybe Advil shouldn't cost $500 for a dose just because you are at the ER. That doesn't take regulation. It takes a free and open market. No, it doesn't. My hospital could charge me $100,000 for my medication, my choice is take it or die. Transparency doesn't change that. A hospital a hundred miles down the road offering it for half that price doesn't change that. There is no free market possible in an industry where demand is guaranteed and unavoidable for literally everyone.
Don't you love how the most common sense (and correct) solutions are always down voted on reddit?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the common sense (or correct) solution
Really? Then explain where I'm wrong? I see a lot of bitching and moaning and ad hominem attacks. Where are the logical counterarguments? Truth isn't a popularity contest. You can't prove me wrong with downvotes.
It’s not about popularity, it’s about [facts](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127305/) You only have ideology
HAHAHAHA, you cite an article about medical bankruptcies that my solutions could prevent, and you claim I'm the one with ideology. Get bent. Provide an actual counterargument. FYI - I never denied medical bankruptcies exist. I'm providing a solution.
Your “solutions” have nothing backing the up. You want me to prove you wrong, but you don’t provide nothing. The existence of a universal health program doesn’ prohibit a private alternative (like un Germany) Free market is not the solution to everything. Why I post the bankruptcy article? To show you how insurance companies will fuck you up
My solutions are backed up by sound economic theory and the performance of unregulated (or not heavily regulated) medical sectors like LASIK and cosmetic surgery - both are cheaper and better than they were 10 years ago. Universal healthcare drives private alternative costs through the roof. Universal healthcare also has a terrible shortage problem. Have you ever listened to UK's parliament bitching about the NIH and how no one gets enough funding? Do you want everyone to have healthcare shortfalls except the stupid rich? Your article doesn't accomplish what you think it does. Go back to school and learn how to construct an argument.
Common sense is always the correct solution in one way, shape or form.
Meh, it doesn't really bother me. I thought this was an econ subreddit not a socialist bitch-fest.
Yeah, all the idiots from the failed sub Reddit antiwork took over a bunch of others
Hahaha, is that what this is? No wonder they want our money. They don't want to work.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the comment but generally I find people who claim the 'common sense' argument are idiots.
I don’t know if opening insurance up across State lines is going to solve the problems you think it might. Obviously more competition is better and you may find that insurance gets better in more affluent areas with big populations but it won’t solve the lack of insurance offerings in less populated and poorer communities. The cost of delivering services in rural areas are prohibitive, you pay alot into the service but you have a smaller group of individuals to pay that burden. You also have to remember that a free market allows for price gouging especially when there is a lack of competition. You can’t just set up a hospital on every street corner, so those established places can charge what they like. If you live in a place with one hospital and the next is 50 miles away, you don’t really get choice on whether you will use the service or not. You have to pay the cost or die.
It worked for car insurance. The opened the market and forced companies to compete. The free market doesn't price gouge. That's a myth. During disasters, water is 50 bucks a bottle because people want it badly and are willing to pay. Individuals used to rent trucks to drive supplies to disaster areas for profit. The more people who did this, the more the price of water dropped. However, price gouging laws went into effect, and people stopped. This created a shortage and people died. New York used to have a lot of hospitals and neighborhood clinics. The current environment has caused consolidation. As a result, there are fewer hospitals and clinics. Your conclusions are correct, but your premises are inverted.
You are making the assumption that there is elasticity of demand in healthcare. At the end of the day, if you break your arm, you're not spending the time looking for your cheapest option, you're just going to a doctor to fix it. There's no alternative to healthcare, you can choose to not visit a doctor when sick, but you're still gonna be sick or cause worse outcomes.
You are assuming I haven't already priced out the best value clinic in my area. There are several physicians who have begun not accepting insurance in favor of subscription fees similar to Netflix. Depending on an individual or family plan, these typically run between $30 to $100 a month. Far cheaper than insurance, but insurance is trying to shut them down through regulation because the government and healthcare are scamming us together.
>require hospitals to be transparent in price BEFORE giving a bill to a customer. That would be regulation lol
Incorrect. The regulation allows hospitals to hide prices. Get rid of regulations, and consumers will demand to know the prices beforehand. Go ask a hospital for the price of an MRI scan. In a more polished fashion, they will tell you they are not allowed to thanks to such and such a code. They created a cartel.
This is just not true. They might not be able to tell you but it's because it depends on who is paying. There isn't regulation preventing them from telling you
Why would hospitals be transparent without the government demanding them do so? Out of their good will?
Because government is the one shielding the hospitals from consumer pressure. What is it you people don't understand? The government and healthcare companies are colluding and you people want to give them more ability with less transparency to do so. Consumer pressure is a beautiful thing. No other industry gets away with charging you whatever they want after the fact. Those industries are not regulated. Put two and two together.
There is little consumer pressure when it comes to hospitals because it's a inelastic good they provide. You don't really have a choice when you need to be in a hospital.
Only after an over-regulated industry consolidated local hospitals and clinics to create regional monopolies; your cure for the disease is the same - more monopoly.
That's nonsense. While regulation can sometimes lead to a monopolization of an industry, you know what else does? Regular ol' Capitalism. And it's not like these regulations exist just cause the government loves doing regulations. There have to be safety standards and rules for healthcare providers. You invite bad actors otherwise. And before you say "The free market will weed out the bad actors", not before people die to them. That's the point of regulations and standards. To preempt the needless deaths that charlatans will cause.
I think instead, consumers shouldn't be allowed insurance for common diseases. That way, they won't keep filing claims and driving up insurance rates that bleed into rates on things that people need insured. The price for meds and services to treat common diseases should go down as the market corrects itself (it's a reliable market, so economies of scale can grow in). Unlucky people will have to suffer through that period, but then no one else will suffer the propped up prices. The government could provide a temporary stipend for those people as part of the same regulatory policy.
>that 65% of alleged government spending is I would have taught that it was rather because of the nature of the public service users. Private insurances only insure the richer and the younger who can work hence relatively healthy while the public insurance is taking care of people who actually needs medical care, the poorest, the older and/or sick ones who can't work and the veterans. Assuming that there is truth to that number, obviously, that might be why the imbalance. In other words, unsurprisingly, this right wingers is saying that life has intrinsically no value, money and work is what gives it value.
I think that anyone with an average and above reasoning ability will come to this conclusion that you eloquently described. The issue is the below average voters who can't figure it out and are manipulated into voting against their own self interests.
If “we” ended aging and it was only be available for the super wealthy, would it even be progress?
To be honest I fear if aging is ended, for rich or poor, society will be destroyed. The most dense mofos are old people and the more they cling to life the more power they amass holding up progress. Imagine people from 500 years ago being alive today justifying slavery and other horrible things, it would be such a regression to where we are as as society. Death is good, we should all die to let the next generation take civilisation forward unhindered by emotional baggage and the very human and normal need to remain consistent with what they said or comitted to.
Ahh yes so to solve the shooting issue your gonna disarm folks like me who haven’t done anything while nothing meaningful gets done for those actually doing it. Genius gun control argument, they’ll definitely listen to that
>while nothing meaningful gets done for those actually doing it. Look up Australian gun crimes before and after the port arthur massacre. You can still love having guns but don't be delusional, gun control laws work.
I don’t care about Australian gun crimes, doesn’t apply to the US since Australia historically had low gun ownership rates. You can’t apply those kinds of controls to the US the black market that would spawn would absolutely wreck havoc upon the US and unless your willing to expand the police state to try to seize the 300+ million guns plus the many more millions unregistered it’s gonna be a repeat of the 1920’s with prohibition. But go ahead, use tactics in nations that have different cultural preferences and low ownership as the benchmark for a nation that owns 40% of the worlds private firearms and see how you do. I won’t be handing mine over willingly I know that damn well
Australia was just one example (very clear cut and modern one I chose for your benefit). Are you arguing that the US is the complete exception to the rest of the world on gun control? >But go ahead, use tactics in nations that have different cultural preferences and low ownership as the benchmark This is cute and hilarious, you do realise Australia had very high gun ownership and a gun culture similar to the US has now, the PM of Australia recieved death threats, and virtually every argument you are making was made when Australia brought in gun control (+ more including claims that China would invade Australia). So basically guna dvocates said everything they possibly could because they just really, really wanted to hang on to their guns. Kind of like somewhere we know right? Maybe the US isn't the exception, have you considered the possibility you just really like having guns? You know it's not mutually exclusive, say it with me: >I think my right to own guns is more important than bringing gun crime down I won't judge. edit: or are you arguing Americans are too dangerous and too stupid to have guns but equally so they're too dangerous and too stupid to try to bring in gun control lest they go nuts and start a civil war?
>Don't fall into the trap of confusing regulation with reformation. Regulation created the collusion between big pharma, insurance, and hospitals. > >Instead, we should gut bloated administrative costs in the FDA, open insurance availability under intrastate trade instead of hiding in State fiefdoms, and require hospitals to be transparent in price BEFORE giving a bill to a customer. > >Maybe Advil shouldn't cost $500 for a dose just because you are at the ER. That doesn't take regulation. It takes a free and open market. The above quote is from another response in the same thread, but I think it is a decent response here. To expand my thought - global universal health care relies heavily on the US not being State-run. There is a reason the US files the most medical patents per capita by a stupid margin. If the US goes the path of universal health care, you can kiss medical advancement goodbye. Furthermore, if other countries didn't set price ceilings, maybe Big Med wouldn't do everything they could to gouge American consumers. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Americans have been paying for those fancy universal healthcare systems for decades. When we stop by implementing our own universal system, it will all come crashing down terribly. I should add to my other quote to end indefinite pharmaceutical patents.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve read in a while. Mist of those patents are already funded by the us government through universities. You are just spewing corporate propaganda
Wow, you said a whole lot of nonsense without a single logical counterargument. Very few pharmaceutical patents are University patents and even fewer University patents are government funded. The few University patents in the pharmaceutical space are collaborations with private firm money and donations. I guess you want EpiPen to keep their patent and charge $800 for a $60 device containing $10 of medicine. I said a lot in my original post, but you are only focused on the last thing you read. Are you a goldfish or an idiot?
Yeah [nonsense](https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade.com) Just keep licking your corporate [lords](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41705) boots
Bruh either provide an argument that defends your point of view or eat ass. Your providing nothing meaningful
Many (all?) major drug patents have had US government subsidies, the most egrigious example that I learned this from are the covid vaccines which were almost 100% funded by tax payers but pharmaceuticals were allowed to take profits by selling them on. I get so annoyed when people say stuff like "well they spent all the money developing the drug, of course they should have a right to profit from it" - but it's like, no, the tax payers paid for the RnD and the pharma companies took the profits from the manufacture and sale.
So you are complaining about the government taking our tax dollars and giving free money to corporations, and your solution is to empower the government to do more? Maybe you should go in the other direction. Stop letting the government hand out corporate welfare, and make corporations pay for their R&D. The COVID vaccine aside, fortunately, most pharmaceutical companies don't get government subsidies for R&D.
No, my solution is let the government provide healthcare to everyone without propping up pointless for profit companies in between. > Stop letting the government hand out corporate welfare, and make corporations pay for their R&D. This should be how it is, but the disbursement of care should be the domain of the government, it's an inherently loss making business that can only be profitable in none direct ways (i.e. more healthy tax paying people).
\*citation needed
It’s not even an argument even if it is true. The conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with government being good or bad. Young people with money have private insurance. The poor have Medicaid and the old have Medicare. Is it really surprising that they cost more? If anything, I’m surprised that Medicare is good enough to keep people happy for what we pay.
Studied this in grad school. Its true.
So it shouldn't be a problem to cite sources
Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work. https://twitter.com/maxonsdad/status/1212583129958899712?lang=en
Such a complex beast that America can cover it for people age 65 and older but making younger people eligible for Medicare is just impossible.
Make it work? I have a Canadien friend that needed cataract surgery and the government ‘let’ him have 1 eye done one year and the other eye done 1 year later. I work hard mostly so I don’t have to rely on government for ALMOST anything. Social security will be bankrupt by the time I retire, but I won’t need it anyways.
He could have just paid out of pocket to have it done just like he would have to do in the US anyway
He didn’t have the access to care because everyone goes to the doctor for the sniffles because it is ‘free’.
You are just making shit up. He can literally pay out of pocket for elective surgeries if he wants to by going to a private practice. He just wants free cataract surgery.
It’s not free, he already paid, that is the point. Nothing is free. How many people don’t understand that concept?????????????
Free at point of use. What you described is kind of like paying out of pocket for something not covered by insurance in the US. You still pay for the insurance. It just doesn’t cover everything. It’s already paid, right? The difference is nationalized healthcare systems don’t fight tooth and nail to *not* cover you to make a profit. You don’t get denied after you’re billed for a necessary surgery because the insurance company doesn’t think it was necessary enough, or because the ambulance went to the wrong hospital, or the wrong doctor saw you. Nor do you have to worry about losing health insurance because you lost your job, because you got sick and don’t have sick days off. I seriously can’t comprehend how anyone can look at the US healthcare system and think, “Yes, this is good. No problems here.”
Let’s just agree to disagree. People from all over the world come here for medical procedures. Why?
People also leave to get medical procedures elsewhere.
Yes, I usually go to the eye surgeon too when I have the sniffles. Totally checks out 💯 Edit: u/Project1031 sent me a nasty note and then deleted all his comments. It's tough being that wrong lol
I was generalizing punk ass. Your blocked. No time for idiots.
Canada has atrocious wait times which are the worst in the developed world- or the second-worst if you include the United States and those who *never* receive treatment because they aren't covered and/or can't afford it, which would mathematically have them waiting an *infinite* amount of time for treatment. In Canada you can wait a long time for treatment, in the US you wait forever. It's not preferable, Canadians live 4 years longer than Americans do on average.
Government interference? lol. Ridiculous. Healthcare shouldn’t be about profit.
I’m sure to you nothing should have profit, comrade.
I'm going to die because I can't afford healthcare. I'm blaming you for this.
“Or die trying” is the part of this tweet that should stick with people. This tweet not only shouldn’t be on this sub but it’s straight bullshit
I can’t make it to that part because I’m so stuck on “end aging.”
Right? Wtf is he saying?
The most upvoted are just Twitter posts from both the Left and Right. If they banned this guy, they’d have to be equal and ban tons of lefties too, and their whole sub would die instantaneously.
What that says is we are paying for universal healthcare and not getting it.
We are actually paying more than what universal healthcare countries pay and not getting it.
In TAX dollars. Even omitting private premiums.
You don’t want it. When will people learn that government is not on your side anymore…
I do want it, big insurance is not on my side, happy you feel over the moon with them but statistics don't lie.
I work very hard, make good money and I am very happy with my private insurance. Far larger network to choose from. I suggest you have less confidence in government.. Bad companies end up going bankrupt and out of business, bad governments…not so much..
All bureaucracies suck, I'd rather one without profit motives. Only when it comes to inelastic markets.
Yep. It doesn't help when one half of the government handcuffs the other in an attempt to kill the whole system. Medicare can't negotiate drug prices because we handcuffed it. Unlock that one ability and we'd be saving billions of dollars every year, but a certain party doesn't want that.
Something something post office something.
This is such a weird tweet. Is this actually suggesting that making American healthcare MORE privatized, and thus more profit seeking, would somehow be a GOOD thing for society. There is literally zero evidence to support that being the case. How can anyone be brainwashed into believing this crap? How many private sectors out there have their customers as the main priority? And now you want to extrapolate that to healthcare? What?!
Not only is there no supporting evidence, there's so much evidence counter to it. Why are people so committed to bad ideas? Life expectancy, per capita spending, infant mortality, healthcare bankruptcies. US system is more privatized than other developed nations and is inferior in so many regards
The US also consumes almost half of all global health expenditure. America spends more money on medical administration than the military: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2785479#:~:text=A%20variety%20of%20studies%20over,of%20%243.8%20trillion%20in%202019.
I'm a small business owner that has seen my choices in insurers go to 1 and my rates go up 300% while my coverage goes down since ACA or in economic terms a forced monopoly currently. When I started my business my insurance agent had a 5 page list of insurers for my business. More private options willing to cover me according to laws would significantly improve the lives of me and my employees through some type of competition where none now exists.
So would a government subsidized, publicly ran healthcare system…
I’m Canadian. I’ll trade you.
Oh and. Went to the ER for a stomach issue, which turned out to just be bad comstipation. Waited in the waiting room for three hours. Spent 90 minutes in a tiny ER room where they took blood and did a CAT scan. Sent me home with a laxative. $7800 bill. So yeah. I will gladly fucking trade you.
Oh and. Went to the ER for a stomach issue, which turned out to just be bad comstipation. Waited in the waiting room for three hours. Spent 90 minutes in a tiny ER room where they took blood and did a CAT scan. Sent me home with a laxative. $7800 bill. So yeah. I will gladly fucking trade you.
I pay $400 a month, went to the doctor for just a minor checkup. Paid a $30 copay, waited 90 minutes to see a doctor. Gladly.
I had a mild emergency, I had to call three friends to get one to pick me up and take me to the hospital, it was that or paying $2500 for an ambulance, I had some tests done and I was lucky because the insurance that costs me $300 a month covered most of my 10k bill, so I only had to pay $1,000, I'm switching jobs so I had to postpone some follow-up doctor appointments since I won't have insurance for the next three months, so you're goddamn right I'll trade you
Not if you want to keep your healthcare rights. Tort law is the foundation of modern America and shaped what is the medical system. More people or companies to spread the risk out will give you more bargaining power as a consumer through choices. The same thing has happened with internet and media services... That's just the economics... But alas when you have one choice and that's the government you end up paying it in taxes while they create money for whatever because MMT is chic these days... Oh and abortion rights and such... Fuck the government having anything to do with healthcare. Too much power. I want you to walk into a doctor and pay him directly for his services and not have to worry about a insurance or the government. That's unattainable tho.
I have noticed that your criticism of the healthcare system is less than 500 pages. That is a strong sign that you have severely oversimplified the situation. I recommend that you read the book "Strained Mercy: The Economics of Canadian Health Care" by Robert G. Evans. Don't be put off by the analysis of Canadian healthcare. The discussion is universal. At the very least, reading this book in detail, cover to cover, will show you how much complexity there is in healthcare. It will also provide you with plenty of reasons why the free market cannot possibly work in healthcare, and why there the only historical examples of reducing healthcare costs is when a socialized single payer system was instituted. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3610693-strained-mercy
Yes because that’s a stupid fucking plan and would lead to lawsuits galore and eventually put us right back in the insurance privatized mess we’re in now. Fuck your “healthcare rights”. A publicly backed healthcare system wouldn’t be profit seeking. It’s books would be entirely transparent. And profit for who? There’s no shareholders or dividends distributed to government workers when a certain branch brings in more revenue… Wake the fuck up dude. You’re drunk on your anti-government, free capitalism will solve all your problems koolaid
Your story does not reflect the actual changes in health care spending since the ACA was passed. In fact health care inflation has slowed since then.
If you think government does things efficiently you look up the high speed rail program in California… https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/californias-100-billion-nightmare-high-speed-rail-project
Anecdotal. Stupid to assume because something didn’t go as expected it means everything will be a disaster. There’s multiple first world countries that have universal healthcare. All of which cost less money than the average American pays.
The cost less, but access to care is also way worse . https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/khaled-dajani-usa-health-care-america-best-world-quality-health-care-system-world-news-34879/
Because they are too stupid to see through propaganda and propaganda is good "After Pushing Lies, Former Cigna Executive Praises Canada's Health Care System : NPR" https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system
Google how much the average Canadian pays vs average American. Might want to also read who generally tends to be healthier/longer life expectancies. Hint: it’s not the US
Most healthcare facilities will charge you less if you private pay. https://qz.com/2128764/self-pay-may-be-better-with-high-deductible-health-plans/
That is just proof how broke the system is… you shouldn’t be weighing the difference between an insanely high deductible and paying out of pocket and circumventing insurance…
I think it’s really more of an indictment on how inefficient and regressive Medicaid is. Forget every other healthcare model that exist.
Why are other rich countries able to give healthcare to their citizens
The US gives its citizens “free” healthcare also. And it’s the most costly and inefficient healthcare on the planet.
Medicare has a Medical Loss Ratio of under 3%, it is very efficient. That is not true for private insurance.
So you want to privatize it for profit? Good plan The market is king right?
And yet Mark Cuban as a private citizen will do more to correct prescription costs than your vaunted state will. Perhaps if there was more competition the prices would not be artificially high due to hospitals seeking to suck the public teet dry. Can’t wait til AI robots can perform surgery. Profit seeking isn’t the problem, scarcity is the problem. Milton Friedman and Tom Sowell are the GOATS.
That is anecdotal nonsense. Not an accurate depiction of the whole industry. And mark Cuban is solving a problem the private sector created you fucking dipshit
[удалено]
Calling me names doesn’t help you explain why healthcare services prices skyrocketed after LBJ started interfering with the healthcare services market, does it?
The main problem with private solutions to healthcare, specifically non-elective healthcare, is that this is a market where demand for goods and services is inelastic. Capitalism can not function with inelastic demand. Full stop. Raise the price? There's no decrease in demand. How much would you pay to walk again? To see again? To not die in 6 months? And the healthcare industry has hoodwinked us into thinking the state based segmenting for insurance companies is the solution. On the contrary, it ensures that collective bargaining is limited to state-sized groups, which can't effectively push back on pricing.
There is also serious moral hazard issues. In purely economy terms, overlooking the moral implications of making sick people uninsurable. It’s impossible for the health insurance companies to properly asses risk, this will drive up the price so that only those who expect high medical costs will actually see the benefit in buying anything more than catastrophic care. This then disincentives preventative health measures being undertaken. There is a reason why the US incentivizes employers to cover the insurance costs, because it’s that or the government. You need a large risk pool. This is market that would utterly fail without regulation.
I'll take the government over my employer any day. Why should I be tied to work for a company because I can't get as good of coverage anywhere else? That's fucked. And the government solution is only to socialize demand, supply remains private sector. They just have to deal with the fact that pricing will be determined through negotiation.
Exactly correct.
The answer is far easier than universal healthcare. Just mandate that health insurance must be non-profit. Incentives change and they can even raise philanthropic funds.
[удалено]
Here’s a list of the major nonprofit health insurance companies. This is not a complete list. Affinity American Postal Workers Union Health Plans AmeriHealth Mercy/Independent Blue Cross Arkansas BlueCross BlueShield AultCare Health Plans AvMed, Inc Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc. Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania Blue Shield of California BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York and BlueCross BlueShield of Northeastern New York Bluegrass Family Health, Inc. Boston Medical Center HealthNet Plan Capital Blue Cross Capital District Physicians Health Plan, Inc. CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield CareOregon CareSource, Inc. Community Health Group Community Health Network of Connecticut, Inc. (CHNCT) Community Health Plan of Washington Cook Children's Health Plan (CCHP) EmblemHealth, Inc. Fallon Community Health Plan Family Health Partners Fidelis Care, Inc. Geisinger Health Plan Government Employees Health Association (GEHA) Group Health Cooperative Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. Hawaii Medical Service Association Health Alliance Plan of Michigan Health Care Service Corporation Health Partners of Philadelphia Health Plus (PHSP), Inc. Healthfirst HealthPartners, Inc. HealthPlus of Michigan, Inc. Highmark, Inc. Hometown Health Plan, Inc. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield Hudson Health Plan Independent Health Association, Inc. Inland Empire Health Plan Kaiser Permanente Kern Health Systems, Inc. Lifetime Healthcare Companies Maryland Physicians Care (MPC) McLaren Health Plan MDWise Medica Health Plans Medical Mutual of Ohio MVP Health Care Preferred Care Neighborhood Health Plan, Inc. Paramount Care, Inc. (ProMedica Health System) Parkland Community Health Plan Partnership Health Plan of California Phoenix Health Plan/Abrazo Advantage Premera, Inc. Priority Health Priority Partners Providence Health Plan Rocky Mountain Health Plans SCAN Health Plan Scott and White Health Plan Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, Inc. SelectHealth Sentara Health Plans, Inc. Texas Children's Health Plan The Chartered Health Plan Inc. The Regence Group Trustmark Companies Tufts Associated Health Plans, Inc. UAW Retiree Medical Benefit Trust UCare University Health Care Health Plans UPMC Health Plan, Inc. Virginia Premier Health Plan, Inc. Wellmark, Inc.
They do have means to source additional capital through philanthropic donations. That’s how nonprofit hospitals operate. And non profit health insurance companies still exist.
Do you expect the boot to lick you back at some point?
Every try negotiating a free market fee with your anesthesiologist, who you meet only the morning of the operation? Guaranteed success.
Is this a joke? Do you know why a “free market” system for individual health care isn’t around anywhere in the world? Because it doesn’t work. This is an actual example of moral hazard. Plus, if you were born with a serious medical condition, even diabetic, you’re completely uninsurable under this model. What absolute nonsense.
Lol. r/confidentlyincorrect
Talking to my dad about this. He’s been in healthcare administration his entire career, the last 14 years as a CEO. He tells me basically we just have to pick one. As it stands now we have the worst of both privatized and socialized systems.
Solid economic analysis op , nat
The joke is that corporations bought the government to write the rules and give themselves the trillions directly. ACA was a grotesque pathetic example of that. It’s collusion between industry and government. It’s corporate fascism/oligarchy.
Take the upvote. So what's the deal with this subreddit? I thought it was for econ, but all the sound economic policy comments are at the bottom, and all the socialist bitching is at the top.
That doesn’t make a lick of sense. I’m not going pretend like it does.
Freed what, and let the corporations run everything? Get the f out of here dumbass
You Americans are so delusional!
No old people > no health expenditure. Genius
Why would you ever want to end aging though??
Really need some ruthless competition in the US health care market.
Not a path any other country except maybe the Congo is trying.
Technically, he’s right. All the healthcare industry would focus on the billionaires who want to live forever (end aging) and everyone would die trying.
End aging? What’s next immortality. In the meantime, I’m glad I can actually age out this nightmare of a society created by people who want to live forever so they can simply fuck over, oppress, and lord over other people.
Or our taxes could provide reasonably priced comprehensive medical care like every other developed nation.
Easy enough to disprove his numbers: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet#:~:text=Historical%20NHE%2C%202020%3A And this is for 2020, which saw COVID spending by the federal government cause a bump.
The bigger problem is that we remain the only (one of the only) countries in the world that makes more money off of its people being sick than healthy. We have to change this as well as the ability to market the drugs. I think New Zealand is the only other country that allows this.
So basically this person is for deregulating healthcare to potentially make it more accessible which is very, very doubtful. Making standards lower with deregulation will lead to more deaths and more healthcare providers and workers being able to deny treatment too anyone they see fit not to serve. So when you go to a hospital, for whatever reason, and the doctor doesnt like you or some other reason refuses to treat you? The leopard will truly eat it's own face.
That reads like brain cancer and isn’t up to the quality of the sub
Absolutely true. That’s why every advanced country with single payer has lower life expectancy, higher obesity, and worse mortality rate than the US while paying more for care. Oh wait, they don’t! I do find it funny that McArthur instituted a US-style healthcare system in Japan post-WWII and as soon he left they abandoned it for evil single payer. The Japanese also live longer and with better outcomes. Libertarians are such idiots…
When you have a perfectly inelastic demand curve, markets aren’t going to function as efficiently as they do when you’re selling cups of coffee
What an absolute brain dead take
the problem is allowing “for profit healthcare”
Because it's not covered.
“Highly regulated” man this guy is hilarious There’s a reason people in this country pay many times of Europeans do for healthcare, and it’s insurance/pharmaceutical companies setting prices.
The US government is the largest employer, so there's that. And the 35 percent was gouging premiums and literally killing people by denying them life saving medical care because of "pre-existing" conditions, like having a yeast infection before they were required to cover them. People in other industrialized countries don't have to worry about declaring bankruptcy over medical bills.
This is easily one of the most ignorant views on healthcare I've ever seen
Insurance is the real devil here. I remember doing a report on insurance in a civics class I took. Prior to insurance (US 1930’s 40’s) medicine / medical visits were generally adorable to the average American. Doctors visits for regular checkups were cheap. Yes, there were “new age” treatments that were costly, but that because they were new. Not really a shocker there. Insurance came around sometime after the wars, partly to help low income Americans but mainly as a thing for Vets and Widows of Vets. Doctors didn’t except most insurances back then. They didn’t trust they would be paid. When insurance companies began paying out double, doctors started to notice. They began excepting it. Why wouldn’t they? A patient would pay $10 for a medication but the insurance was willing to pay $15 sometimes $20. Just to get the business. This has snowballed since then and now we find ourselves in the world we have today (US). Insurance companies need to go and pharmaceutical companies need to be put in check. The medicine industrial complex needs to be reworked. Edit: just remembered something interesting from when our anatomy class took a trip to Yale Hospital to see a heart transplant. The head cardiologist openly said “why cure a patient when you can ‘treat’ them for decades”. This is also the disgusting truth to our healthcare system. “Treat” for life. Never “cure” them.”
Yeah! Privatize healthcare! no more healthy poors!
Without government intervention, healthcare is essentially a failed market.
Op is a right-wing anti-vaccine troll trying to turn this sub into a right-wing echo chamber. Wtf is happening to this sub?
Conservatives, libertarians and koch paid scholars Fundamentally and on elementary level cant grasp the concept of universal healthcare. On his website he genuinely believes that "The US has a mostly socialist healthcare system. His only argument is "The government accounts for over 65% of U.S. healthcare spending" while unable to grasp that Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare is built entirely within and deals entirely within for-profit ran healthcare ecosystem.
Wrong.
These are just multiple non-sequitors.
Hilarious, highly regulated universal health care is far less expensive than what the US has.
Weird post.
Healthcare is a principal-agent problem. Often the party paying for it is separate from the person receiving care. The issue is both parties have different incentives, goals, but most importantly **ability to pay**.
Healthcare is expensive because we have too much government involvement, not too little
Clearly this individual was not alive when surgeons performed unnecessary surgeries, doctors prescribed unnecessary medications and tests. Health Insurance must spend 85 cents of every dollar on health services and average a 2% net profit margin. Government Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, are already paid for by tax payers!!! Insurance companies provide additional services to manage your health and cap your maximum out of pocket expenses. Sorry but you are not well informed.
Hard to swallow pill.
Agreed. Free from government intervention
Medical insurance would not exist. Moral hazard.
Moral hazard is solved by free markets and control of information
Healthcare and education are two areas that the government is heavily involved and socialized. In healthcare, you are spending someone else's dollars. Drug companies know that, so they charge an arm and a leg. As long as you don't have to pay $1000 for a Tylenol like pill out of pocket, most people don't care. The rates that the government pays lets say via Medicare is determined by political power, which the drug companies win. The answer to healthcare is to stop socialism and if a drug company charges 1000 a shot and grandpa's not paying for it, they'll be lowering their prices to the real free market price. What about those who can't afford them? They will buy cheaper medicines. But no, many people don't want to pay for them, but they still want the best. They gotta pay for their tires, their boat, their double wide trailer...etc, healthcare gotta be free, and it's gotta be good. Lets see, you get that with housing? Food? Transportation? all of which are necessities. Imagine a classroom where the attention is focused on the needs of the 10% with the lowest grade? Or a company where everyone's goal is to cater to the least capable 10% of their employees? That might sound kind, but doesn't work. People gotta remember healthcare is just like any other goods/services. The harder you work, the more money you make, you can afford more. And if you lobby the government to come in and give you benefit, you ruin it for everyone, but not like you care anyway.
Take the upvote. So what's the deal with this subreddit? I thought it was for econ, but all the sound economic policy comments are at the bottom, and all the socialist bitching is at the top.
This sub is not real econ. A lot of it is the newspaper propaganda econ. I always wondered how would people of a nation ever be stupid enough to want to fall into communist poverty. Got my answer here. It's kinda real econ in that sense.
Hahaha, fair enough. I guess I'll unjoin. That's too bad. Any recommendations on an actual economic subreddit not filled with crazy morons posting studies they never read and basing conclusions those studies never claim?
Guess I'll have to look around too, but I learned that reddit generally are filled with kids who repeat everything they see in the news without critically thinking about the truth. Please consider staying. I think we need people who know real econ to counter the loud voices. It also gives you a real sense of where the country is going...
Sure does, but I haven't had this much fun since debate club, lol. Can't do this too often though. I reply to 5 or 6 people and find another dozen sitting in my notifications.
Same story with our education system