Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Nationalizing Health Care? My last question.

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, I've only recently been a supporter of national health care. I use to be deadest against it, but I still have one question.

How does installing universal healthcare actually help the economy? I want to engage in further debates on the topic, but I can not understand the argument that it produces revenue for the government. It seems like the federal treasury would be spending a lot more.

Anyways, if someone wants to take the time to source me some information on this, and possibly give me some other info, then that would be appreciated.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:14:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:33:27 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
So, I've only recently been a supporter of national health care. I use to be deadest against it, but I still have one question.

How does installing universal healthcare actually help the economy? I want to engage in further debates on the topic, but I can not understand the argument that it produces revenue for the government. It seems like the federal treasury would be spending a lot more.

Anyways, if someone wants to take the time to source me some information on this, and possibly give me some other info, then that would be appreciated.

I'll source you some stuff a bit later, but here's the basic logic:

1. To reduce healthcare costs most effectively, you have to get everyone covered because uninsured people will simply go to emergency rooms -- and, mind you, this will happen even more because they'll be sicker without regular checkups and so forth which by themselves reduce costs -- and jack up premiums.

2. But to get everyone covered, we need a community rating, because without that, premiums for people with preexisting conditions will skyrocket.

3. But to cover preexisting conditions and still balance out the risk pool to keep costs down, there have to be enough healthy people paying into the system. Therefore, a mandate of some kind is needed.

In a lot of ways, single-payer is quite similar to the ACA because it does involve a mandate in much the same way as Medicare and SS -- which is where it differs from a public option. The logic is that covering everyone to prevent paying emergency room fees, maintaining a balanced risk pool, dodging exorbitant private-insurance overhead costs, etc. will reduce healthcare costs enough to provide the federal government with a savings. A good example is the so-called "Medicare cuts" in the ACA, which amounted to reductions in payments to intermediaries who didn't contribute at all to the quality of healthcare.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:32:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The effect of nationalizing health care on long term economic growth is clearly negative. Why?

Nationalized health care requires higher taxation to fund it. With taxation comes deadweight loss and thus a reduction in long term growth. Furthermore, nationalizing an industry leads to inefficient usage of resources, which also hurts long term growth.

Hypothetically, one could argue that these effects are offset if nationalized health care improves health and thus productivity. But, that is a hard case to make, as the evidence is scant. Yes, the USA lacks nationalized health care and does worse than countries with nationalized health care on various measures of health. But, that is hardly enough evidence to conclude that nationalized health care actually causes greater health.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:35:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I got to say I'm not wholly convinced on either side. It seems that the extra income would only offset the extra taxing drain. Someone needs to push me over the edge on this issue.

Currently, Progressives best point is that it will offset the cots of emergency care, but at the same time, Jimtimmy brings up a good point on overall drainage.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
chicago
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 11:00:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Single payer healthcare eliminates insurance co's reducing cost by 25-30%.Savings are either spent or invested giving government increased revenue tru sales taxes or income taxes.
AnonCastillo
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:19:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are some good reasons not to. For one, the US, which has the most market based health care system of the industrialized world (and even then, our system is half government funded and very interfered with) funds over 40% of the world's medical research funding, and while our government contributes some of that funding, a solid majority of it comes from the market. Even a lot of the medical research done in Europe is funded by US consumers.

However, there are some reasons why our system is not as efficient as it could be. For one, regulations that benefit the insurance industry have reduced competition and made our insurance industry extremely wasteful. Another is that medicare almost never denies treatment, so we end up spending a lot more on the health care of elderly people who will never work again no matter how much we spend on their care than most other countries. We spend roughly the same amount on the health care of Americans age 18-65 as the average country in Europe. We spend twice as much on people age 65-75 and three times as much on people age 75+ as the average country in Europe.

This video goes into a lot more detail. https://www.youtube.com...