Seriously, why do you fear Universal Healthcare as a solution for US?

Insane huh?

 

The market all by itself cannot deal properly with healthcare, because insurance companies do not want to insure older people prone to sickness or sick people for the same reasons they do not want to insure old, beat-up cars and old, beat-up homes. But that said, the government running much of the system is not the solution either, because the same problems inherent with the government running other industries happen with it running healthcare.

However, your particular criticisms in the numbered list are nothing that haven't been said about the market and numerous other industries:

1) The (insert problems industry addresses) are too unpredictable. There has to be a central planner or controller and experts in charge

2) The (insert product and solution) varies widely.

3) The consumer is unequipped to properly evaluate the proper solution

By those standards, you might as well nationalize the grocery and food industries, the automotive industry, the housing industry, and others. There are exceptions in all of these industries, that is why in the food industry, we have regulations requiring food labels, people hire mechanics to inspect cars they buy, inspectors to inspect a home, and such. I can tell you from personal experience that regarding the proper care one needs, some of these medical practitioners are arrogant morons in the extreme who you can't tell anything too because they always assume they know better. The last thing we want is for them to have even more power. The idea that healthcare is somehow a unique, special industry where decisions need to be taken away from the individual is itself a very ideological argument.

 

Wow...that sure is a lot of words to simply evade the question!

You should read the 1963 paper by Kenneth Arrow, Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care.

BTW, you appear to be operating, or at the very least changing the premise of my argument, which is NOT that the government will run healthcare, but rather simplify the payment of those services. Medicine will still be run by doctors and nurses.

 

There is no problem having all Americans in Medicare except how to fund the program...

 

Let those who want to...simply buy into it

 

Not evading anything, I addressed your question. It seems more that you are evading some of my points. That said, I will check out the paper. But remember, one paper from 1963 doesn't end the discussion. Also when the government "simplifies" the payment of the services, it is essentially running the system. The doctors and nurses answer to the government as that it what holds the $$$.

 

Yeah, but that's like saying there is no problem giving all Americans a free five-bedroom house, except how to fund the program...

 

Would you have a problem getting a free 5 bedroom house? How about if it was funded with blood money...Yes the dude has a point, how things are funded matters..and what it is funded for matters.

Taxes diverted from oil, and defense going to medicare for all, is alot better then increasing taxes on everyone by X% to give everyone a free 5 bedroom house....

Sounds nice, as it should generate construction jobs etc...but Gdanm, where is that money coming from. The building a 40,000 mile 40 foot tall Concrete, Rebar enforced wall fund?

Why doesn't the free market build a wall?..sounds non profitable to me.

 

Then you need to be specific. Because so far I still have a problem understanding how your "fee market" will work with healthcare. Since the start of health care insurance, it has applied those market principles. It no longer works!

 

Money doesn't need to be diverted from defense, if anything the defense budget needs to be significantly increased, not decreased. But you could take pretty much the entire defense budget and you still wouldn't have enough money to fund Medicare for all.

The free market doesn't build a wall because that is not an area of the free-market, unless it could be some kind of profitable business. Such a wall itself however would not be nearly as costly as Medicare for all.

 

I was specific. I gave three specifics on the problems with your proposal. In terms of how the market would work, well a few things:

1) The market has not been applied to healthcare insurance since the start of it. It is limited in numerous ways.

2) How the market would work would be in the same ways it works with regards to other industries.

3) I have written that there are limits of the market in health insurance because of the nature of health insurance, and that it would need to be combined with a government component to function fully. Again, the argument is not "100% free-market vs single-payer government-run" health insurance, there are a lot of in-betweens.

 

And when did this occur?

When exactly was the point at which the insurance industry made a mistake when it got into healthcare insurance?

Again, refer to my previous posts. With every other industry you have a choice of whom to do business with, and the ability to compare and negotiate...with health care, this ONLY applies when it is NOT an emergency, or you have enough financial resources to bend the system your way.

The single-payer system eliminates a huge portion of the administrative costs which are associated with 3rd party payment systems.

Like I said, unless you get specific and describe exactly how your system is different than pre-ACA, you are just touting ideology.

 

1. is clearly false. Regulation came about after insurance did. The regulation solved problems in the system. This is true up to and including the ACA, which is also just a set of regulations defining a marketplace in which for-profit corporations compete.

2. Here I don't agree, or maybe I don't understand exactly what you mean. The markets for TVs, automobiles, entertainment, etc., include the fact that people are free to selective alternatives that are outside the market or to not choose a product at all. Health care isn't like that. If you need an operation, have aids, are diabetic, or whatever, choosing a TV instead of health care may be suicide - not a valid choice.

What's missing in health care is choice - a fundamental of free market capitalism.

3. I agree fully. For example, there are a number of countries which have single payer coverage for all citizens while leaving items considered nonessential not covered (and covered by insurance companies for those who want to buy coverage).

We do something slightly similar with dental and vision - options that aren't part of the ACA regulatory feature set, and for which you can buy insurance if you want to.

There are variations on the "single payer" theme.

 

January 31st, 2017 I saw my Pain MGT doctor and requested an MRI for my right knee which I had the following week. March 8th, after seeing the Ortho Doctor I had a Surgery date of March 19th, 2017. My surgery was done and I am in the process of rehab right now. If I lived in Canada I would be waiting till Nov 17th, 2017 to get my knee fixed. No thank you to single payer.

 

Food is every bit as essential to our physical well being as healthcare. Why don't we have universal food guarantees? Where does this wealth redistribution stop and personal responsibility begin? There are other solutions.

 

Yeah Frank.....in my community those barbarians operate a Christian co-op where Doctors volunteer one day a week, donate medicine for $50 per visit. They do volunteer follow-up as well. It does lighten the load on the teat of government so others can suckle.

 

I guess you've never heard of food stamps, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

 

Good for them!

Too bad this does not always scale up on a voluntary basis. Also does little for hospitalization.

 

It occurred when state governments and the federal government began regulating health insurance and healthcare.

Most healthcare is not an emergency though.

Supposedly it does, but in practice, not so much (just look at Medicare, Massachusetts's system, and Vermont's). It also runs into the classical problems of socialist management of things. In Massachusetts, for example, waiting times grew dramatically after the introduction of their healthcare program. The British NHS has historically been notorious for problems with rationing and waiting times.

You have mentioned about how the U.S. spends more than other countries on health care, yet, we already have three single-payer systems as it is, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.

I don't have a "specific" pre-ACA system, but I know there are alternatives to single-payer.

 

That's a bit of broad statement. Regulations can fix certain problems, but one could write volumes about the various ways regulations can mess up industries. Keep in mind that sometimes industries lobby for regulations so as to stifle competitors from forming. In addition, politicians tend not to be too smart about the various effects that regulations can have. I am not arguing against regulation, it is very much needed, but it is also very much a double-edged sword.

Food, shelter, clothing, etc...are not generally options either, but we don't need the government to provide them except in the form of safety nets. Also, so to provide choice in healthcare, the solution is to let the government obtain a monopoly over it?

 

That's a safety net program that is completely separate from the overall "food industry" if you will. It would be like having a mostly free-market healthcare system with a safety net system to provide healthcare funding to those temporarily who need it. Instead, what is being proposed is a nearly wholesale government takeover of the system, which is different.

 

And why do you suppose that is?

States began creating their own dept of insurance because insurance is nothing more than a promise. It's an aleatory agreement that should an agreed and specific set of circumstances arise, the insurance company would pay the value of the contract. Problems arose however when companies would sell boat loads of policies, but not have enough funds to pay out, and therefore they left the policyholders with worthless paper. State DOIs were formed to curb and regulate not only insurance companies, but brokers as well from this practice of selling junk paper.

Health insurance was actually started by individual hospitals, and it wasn't so much insurance but more akin to a prepaid health plan. Over time, it morphed into health insurance as we know it today, but even there, the industry without proper regulation was prone to fraud and malfeasance.

The regulations are in place to protect the public at large.

That is true, but you cannot predict when a routine office visit for a cough maybe the underlying symptom of something more severe, be it acute or a diagnosis which becomes a chronic illness.

You seem to be advocating a return to a fee-for-service model, such as in the early days, like 1920's. I hate to tell you, but that like wishing to buy a brand new car for $900. It's not going to happen. Even if you could magically wave you hand and freeze healthcare costs from rising exponentially, the average person cannot afford ANY medical circumstance beyond a routine visit. An emergency room visit for a few stitches can easily be $3,000.

Look, there are people far smarter than you or me who have played with this Rubic's cube of healthcare far longer than either of us have been alive. To think you can solve it on the belief in free markets is what has gotten us to where we are today.

And you don't have waiting times under your current health plan for non-urgent visits? Just this last month I made a routine appointment with my doctor on a new health plan. The soonest they could see me was 22 days. The NHS has an 18 day waiting period. Guess what? EVERYBODY wants to see a doctor just when you do too! That's life. Sure, if money is no obstacle to you, you can get someone to see you right away in any health system because cash is king.

This is a pretty weak and bogus argument to make that has been debunked many times over.

And most seniors are quite happy with Medicare, which is why it can serve as a model. The quality of Medicaid is dependent on how and who the states appoint to run the administration of it. I have no experience with the VA, so I cannot talk about it.

Now granted, expanding Medicare to lower age groups will make it more costly, but as a nation that is what we should be debating.

So far it seems like half the country is starting to appreciate the value of having health care, now it's a matter of deciding how to pay for it.

And you still have as yet to demonstrate in any practical way how we could move towards creating more affordable coverage for all. If there is an alternative out there beyond the 20 some odd countries who have some form of nationalized healthcare, feel free to write it out in detail and submit it to your elected official.

But all I keep seeing from you thus far is a belief, not a plan.

 

I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from. Maybe it's this line: Instead, what is being proposed is a nearly wholesale government takeover of the system, which is different.

What "system" are you referring to being taken over?

And where does the term "wholesale" come from?

If you have the money, you can get whatever kind of care you want anywhere in the world.

Single-payer, or any other kind of nationalized healthcare, is not going to affect you if you have the cash. What makes you think it would?

 

Heard of them....free food if you're poor or just willing to lie and vote Democrat.

 

Have you applied?

Because unless you qualify, you don't get it. And if you think you can lie to get it, you are sadly mistaken.