Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Healthcare

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:18:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does anybody actually think that healthcare is a free market system?

What do you think would happen to healthcare costs if they were provided privately, separate from work, and all companies were allowed to compete across state lines, and companies weren't forced as to what kind of protection they can offer to people?

Government regulations can force me to cover the costs of insurance companies being forced to provide acupuncture services to everyone in a state... I also have to pay the same to cover the fact that everyone has to provide lung cancer coverage, even though I've never smoked at all. I'm healthier than most Americans, but that has no bearing at all. I don't eat junk food, drink, do drugs, and I exercise and get a good amount of sunlight and fresh air....

... and I pay exactly the same thing for the same coverage as my coworker who eats McDonalds twice a day, smokes a pack a day, goes home and plays Xbox all weekend, and boozes every night.

It's just... so incredibly stupid.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

They only make a 4% profit margin right now.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:46:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

lol

They only make a 4% profit margin right now.
Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?

Or... just let private citizens contract with health care providers free of the insurance intercessor (or to more accurately describe them... albatross).
Tsar of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:03:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

Their profits increased by 114% from 2000 to 2004.

http://www.amsa.org...

They only make a 4% profit margin right now.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

I thought the HSA's would force Americans to pay their health care costs with this account, and encourage competition and lower costs.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?

Exactly.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:10:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:03:57 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

Their profits increased by 114% from 2000 to 2004.

http://www.amsa.org...

The source for that claim is a broken link.

Either healthcare costs rose that much, or their profit margins in 2000 were very very low. That kind of statement really says nothing. Profit margin is what counts, not strict profits.

They only make a 4% profit margin right now.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

I thought the HSA's would force Americans to pay their health care costs with this account, and encourage competition and lower costs.

HSA's are just using your own money, pre-tax, to pay for health care costs. To the companies, it doesn't matter. It just gives the taxpayer a savings on those costs equal to their tax rate.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?

Exactly.

How?

How will government reduce the costs of:

Malpractice insurance
Education costs(= doctor salaries)
Medical equipment
Pharmaceutical research
Diabetes treatment
Obesity treatment
High car accident rates

?

You have to understand the costs before you can figure out how to fix them. Do you have any idea where the costs are actually going? I have a great post I can copy for you if you don't.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:25:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:10:11 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:03:57 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

Their profits increased by 114% from 2000 to 2004.

http://www.amsa.org...

The source for that claim is a broken link.

Either healthcare costs rose that much, or their profit margins in 2000 were very very low. That kind of statement really says nothing. Profit margin is what counts, not strict profits.

The Bush tax cuts probably helped. You need PDF to read it.

They only make a 4% profit margin right now.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

I thought the HSA's would force Americans to pay their health care costs with this account, and encourage competition and lower costs.

HSA's are just using your own money, pre-tax, to pay for health care costs. To the companies, it doesn't matter. It just gives the taxpayer a savings on those costs equal to their tax rate.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?

Exactly.

How?

How will government reduce the costs of:

Malpractice insurance

It generally does because gov't picks up this tab and not doctors. And the rates of tort payments are lower in single payer countries.

Education costs(= doctor salaries)

This is only 2% of the reason for the disparity in high costs.

Medical equipment

Global budgets, more efficient use of high tech devices, limit overuse with global budgets and doctor responsibility.

Pharmaceutical research

SP doesn't really change this.

Diabetes treatment

Improved public health with equal access to care.

Obesity treatment

^

High car accident rates

Better sleep deprivation awareness.

?

You have to understand the costs before you can figure out how to fix them. Do you have any idea where the costs are actually going? I have a great post I can copy for you if you don't.

High administrative costs
Profit costs
Lack of ICT
Lack of preventive or preventative care
Prescription drug costs
Overuse of care
Lack of price transparency
Massively complicated billing procedures
Marketing costs
etc.

I'd like to see a copy of your post though.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:42:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:25:00 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:10:11 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:03:57 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

Their profits increased by 114% from 2000 to 2004.

http://www.amsa.org...

The source for that claim is a broken link.

Either healthcare costs rose that much, or their profit margins in 2000 were very very low. That kind of statement really says nothing. Profit margin is what counts, not strict profits.

The Bush tax cuts probably helped. You need PDF to read it.

No, the source that your link uses to back up that claim is a broken link.

If they make a 4% profit margin now, and before they made less than 2%, then ok, they could have doubled their profits... 4% isn't obscene at all.


They only make a 4% profit margin right now.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

I thought the HSA's would force Americans to pay their health care costs with this account, and encourage competition and lower costs.

HSA's are just using your own money, pre-tax, to pay for health care costs. To the companies, it doesn't matter. It just gives the taxpayer a savings on those costs equal to their tax rate.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?

Exactly.

How?

How will government reduce the costs of:

Malpractice insurance

It generally does because gov't picks up this tab and not doctors. And the rates of tort payments are lower in single payer countries.

Tort reform would change that. Changing the payer system wouldn't change it. We can change tort laws independently, it doesn't matter.

If the government picks up the tab, that means that taxpayers pick up the tab.

Education costs(= doctor salaries)

This is only 2% of the reason for the disparity in high costs.

No it's not. Our doctor/surgeon/nurse/medical assistant salaries are about double the OECD average. That means we 'overpay' for those salaries by about $220 Billion per year.

Medical equipment

Global budgets, more efficient use of high tech devices, limit overuse with global budgets and doctor responsibility.

What do you mean by global budget, or more efficient use? Tort reform would reduce the practice of defensive medicine, and that can be fixed independently, without going single payer.

Pharmaceutical research

SP doesn't really change this.

SP doesn't really change any of the real costs. That's the point.

We need to pressure the rest of the world to stop putting price controls on pharmaceutical companies. America literally foots the bill for worldwide drug research.

Diabetes treatment

Improved public health with equal access to care.

Obesity treatment

^

So, you think diabetes and obesity is up to the healthcare system to fix? Not anything like American diet and lifestyle? Obesity and Diabetes cost American $200 Billion per year more than it would if we had rates equal to the rest of the OECD.

High car accident rates

Better sleep deprivation awareness.

Are you being serious?

?

You have to understand the costs before you can figure out how to fix them. Do you have any idea where the costs are actually going? I have a great post I can copy for you if you don't.

High administrative costs
Profit costs
Lack of ICT
Lack of preventive or preventative care
Prescription drug costs
Overuse of care
Lack of price transparency
Massively complicated billing procedures
Marketing costs
etc.

I'd like to see a copy of your post though.

kk
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:43:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The US leads the world in obesity rates, and obese people pay $1,500+ per year more than non-obese.

The US leads(or nearly) the world in diabetes rates. Diabetics spend 2.3 times as much on healthcare than non-diabetics.

The US pays double the price for branded prescription drugs compared with Europe. Europe uses price controls, and pharmaceutical companies lose money on drugs they sell there. They make their profit by jacking up the price in America.

Surgeons, Doctors, and Nurses earn approximately double in the US compared to the OECD average.

Traffic accident mortality rates in the US are double the OECD average, and total accident rates are triple.

The 'overpayment' of Americans on healthcare for each category are as follows:
Obesity: $95 billion
Diabetes: $115 billion
Prescriptions: $125 billion
Salaries: $220 billion+
Traffic: $100 billion

Or $2,100 per person.

Interestingly, in 2006 the US was only $1900 per capita above the trend line for spending across countries. I just thought, maybe, some of you might be interested in the real reasons why US healthcare costs more than it 'should'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 9:02:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

The largest health care insurer is Blue Shield, a non-profit. Their rates are about the same as the for-profit companies. Profit-making companies have a reason to cut costs in order to stay competitive.

Laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery are not covered by any insurance. The cost of those in the free market has dropped by half as regulated health care costs have soared.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 9:16:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I honestly think the consumer would be better off if they paid for doctor visits and routine check ups/medicine out of pocket, and had private insurance for major surgeries and illness. The insurance companies would make more money and charge less, because they don't have to cover basic medical care, and basic medical care and medicine would decrease in cost as competition took effect.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 9:19:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would be open to the idea of the government providing insurance to lower income brackets for major surgery and illness, as part of a transitionary period as the price of medical services goes down. Routine check ups on the other hand, I would leave to free clinics and private charities, which would become more common as people begin to realize that the government into going to offer that service anymore.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 9:41:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:25:00 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:10:11 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:03:57 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:37:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Did you know that competition forces companies to slim down and be more efficient?

Their profits increased by 114% from 2000 to 2004.

http://www.amsa.org...

The source for that claim is a broken link.

Either healthcare costs rose that much, or their profit margins in 2000 were very very low. That kind of statement really says nothing. Profit margin is what counts, not strict profits.

The Bush tax cuts probably helped. You need PDF to read it.

They only make a 4% profit margin right now.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

HSAs won't really reduce costs. They just give you a tax break on your health costs. For half of Americans, that tax break is essentially nothing.

I thought the HSA's would force Americans to pay their health care costs with this account, and encourage competition and lower costs.

HSA's are just using your own money, pre-tax, to pay for health care costs. To the companies, it doesn't matter. It just gives the taxpayer a savings on those costs equal to their tax rate.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Ok... and the government will somehow reduce costs, right?

Exactly.

How?

How will government reduce the costs of:

Malpractice insurance

It generally does because gov't picks up this tab and not doctors. And the rates of tort payments are lower in single payer countries.

Education costs(= doctor salaries)

This is only 2% of the reason for the disparity in high costs.

Medical equipment

Global budgets, more efficient use of high tech devices, limit overuse with global budgets and doctor responsibility.

Pharmaceutical research

SP doesn't really change this.

Diabetes treatment

Improved public health with equal access to care.

Obesity treatment

^

High car accident rates

Better sleep deprivation awareness.

?

You have to understand the costs before you can figure out how to fix them. Do you have any idea where the costs are actually going? I have a great post I can copy for you if you don't.

High administrative costs

No it wouldnt...

Profit costs

How? It would hurt private insurance.

Lack of ICT

Whats ICT? Explain the acronym D:

Lack of preventive or preventative care

SP makes it worse...

Prescription drug costs

Technologies fuel drug costs (a large portion of them), and sp makes that worse. http://www.kaiseredu.org...

Overuse of care

SP makes it worse!!!

Lack of price transparency

Maybe

Massively complicated billing procedures

Many of them are electronic now. Though SP just speeds the process.

Marketing costs

Like commercials which fund the television industry?

etc.

I'd like to see a copy of your post though.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:34:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 9:16:07 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I honestly think the consumer would be better off if they paid for doctor visits and routine check ups/medicine out of pocket, and had private insurance for major surgeries and illness. The insurance companies would make more money and charge less, because they don't have to cover basic medical care, and basic medical care and medicine would decrease in cost as competition took effect.

I would be more open to this idea. But I have three problems with it,

1) I have seen zero proof that it would decrease costs, and no estimates, or studies.
2) The private insurers still exist. They must be destroyed. I would support HSAs if the catastrophic care was a single payer model. This would cut costs.

With a higher insurance pool, risk is lowered. Therefore, costs are lowered.
The costs of profits, CEO bonuses, and marketing are all additional costs.
The plethora of massive and complex billing procedures would keep costs high.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:55:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

High administrative costs

No it wouldnt...

It would. The OECD average on administrative costs is about 2-3%. (1. http://www.oecd.org...)

We have total administrative costs of 7%, because of:

-smaller insurance pools, thousands of insurance companies
-massive, complicated billing procedures and bureaucracy
-marketing and advertising costs
-denying claims costs
-lack of ICT

Cut out all of them and have one universal system our administration would be cut to 3% of total costs, and we'd save $100 billion.

Profit costs

How? It would hurt private insurance.

Kill them off.

Lack of ICT

Whats ICT? Explain the acronym D:

Electronic, confidential information storage. Either having massive files of paperwork, or electronic storage that is streamlined on a doctor's office computer. And use a health security card instead of the alternative - more papers.

Lack of preventive or preventative care

SP makes it worse...

Preventive care would save $3 billion annually, and (at optimal rates of usage) 2 million lives. (2. http://doh.state.fl.us...)

Prescription drug costs

Technologies fuel drug costs (a large portion of them), and sp makes that worse. http://www.kaiseredu.org...

Most big pharma companies produce "me too" drugs, identical drugs with different brands.

They have large profit margins. And many seniors regularly cross the border into Canada where they can afford cheaper drugs.


Overuse of care

SP makes it worse!!!

Doctors are responsible with a global budget to reduce overuse of care to increase their personal profit margins, leading to greater efficiency.

An entity that ranks medical treatments would go large ways in reducing overuse of care.

Lack of price transparency

Maybe

Massively complicated billing procedures

Many of them are electronic now. Though SP just speeds the process.

About 30% of them are electronic now.

Marketing costs

Like commercials which fund the television industry?

Yes.

etc.

I'd like to see a copy of your post though.

When it comes to insurance, a single entity is usually the best way to solve it. Government is accountable, corporations less so. With the highest pool possible, costs are lowered because of lower risk.

And I'd like to see a real alternative to SP that has facts behind it.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:28:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 11:34:44 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 9:16:07 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I honestly think the consumer would be better off if they paid for doctor visits and routine check ups/medicine out of pocket, and had private insurance for major surgeries and illness. The insurance companies would make more money and charge less, because they don't have to cover basic medical care, and basic medical care and medicine would decrease in cost as competition took effect.

I would be more open to this idea. But I have three problems with it,

1) I have seen zero proof that it would decrease costs, and no estimates, or studies.
2) The private insurers still exist. They must be destroyed. I would support HSAs if the catastrophic care was a single payer model. This would cut costs.

With a higher insurance pool, risk is lowered. Therefore, costs are lowered.
The costs of profits, CEO bonuses, and marketing are all additional costs.
The plethora of massive and complex billing procedures would keep costs high.

The cost of profits would account for $300 of the $7500 per year the average American spends. The cost of CEO bonuses would account for about $0.03 of each American's deductible. CEO salaries don't jack up the prices.

Single payer won't do anything to address the real reasons our healthcare is more expensive than the average trend.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 1:06:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:28:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:34:44 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 9:16:07 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I honestly think the consumer would be better off if they paid for doctor visits and routine check ups/medicine out of pocket, and had private insurance for major surgeries and illness. The insurance companies would make more money and charge less, because they don't have to cover basic medical care, and basic medical care and medicine would decrease in cost as competition took effect.

I would be more open to this idea. But I have three problems with it,

1) I have seen zero proof that it would decrease costs, and no estimates, or studies.
2) The private insurers still exist. They must be destroyed. I would support HSAs if the catastrophic care was a single payer model. This would cut costs.

With a higher insurance pool, risk is lowered. Therefore, costs are lowered.
The costs of profits, CEO bonuses, and marketing are all additional costs.
The plethora of massive and complex billing procedures would keep costs high.

The cost of profits would account for $300 of the $7500 per year the average American spends. The cost of CEO bonuses would account for about $0.03 of each American's deductible. CEO salaries don't jack up the prices.

Single payer won't do anything to address the real reasons our healthcare is more expensive than the average trend.

I repeat, MrBrooks and Jaxson, what to you guys propose instead and have sources to back it up?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 1:11:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:34:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Private, bloated insurance companies wouldn't be able to work. Their goal is not to cover everyone equitably, just to make a profit.

Expanded use of health savings accounts that would cover all basic medical care and federal subsidies that cover the poor with their accounts would be the best free market solution that I'd consider.

Health insurance companies were somewhat effective in the Cold War era, but their time has passed.

Here you go: http://mises.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 1:18:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 1:06:34 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:28:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:34:44 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 9:16:07 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I honestly think the consumer would be better off if they paid for doctor visits and routine check ups/medicine out of pocket, and had private insurance for major surgeries and illness. The insurance companies would make more money and charge less, because they don't have to cover basic medical care, and basic medical care and medicine would decrease in cost as competition took effect.

I would be more open to this idea. But I have three problems with it,

1) I have seen zero proof that it would decrease costs, and no estimates, or studies.
2) The private insurers still exist. They must be destroyed. I would support HSAs if the catastrophic care was a single payer model. This would cut costs.

With a higher insurance pool, risk is lowered. Therefore, costs are lowered.
The costs of profits, CEO bonuses, and marketing are all additional costs.
The plethora of massive and complex billing procedures would keep costs high.

The cost of profits would account for $300 of the $7500 per year the average American spends. The cost of CEO bonuses would account for about $0.03 of each American's deductible. CEO salaries don't jack up the prices.

Single payer won't do anything to address the real reasons our healthcare is more expensive than the average trend.

I repeat, MrBrooks and Jaxson, what to you guys propose instead and have sources to back it up?

I already posted the costs that put us above 'where we are supposed to be'. Nothing in the healthcare system will fix those costs. Nothing.

But, you didn't even respond to my post.

We need to educate people more about their health. The commercials about smoking that have the people talking about what they can't do with a hole in their throat are a good example.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 1:31:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:43:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The US leads the world in obesity rates, and obese people pay $1,500+ per year more than non-obese.

True. The US spends about $100 billion annually because of obesity.

The US leads(or nearly) the world in diabetes rates. Diabetics spend 2.3 times as much on healthcare than non-diabetics.

The US spends $175 billion a year because of diabetes.

The US pays double the price for branded prescription drugs compared with Europe. Europe uses price controls, and pharmaceutical companies lose money on drugs they sell there. They make their profit by jacking up the price in America.

Ok.

Surgeons, Doctors, and Nurses earn approximately double in the US compared to the OECD average.

Canada has similar wages for medical professionals, and as I've said, this accounts for only 2% of the cost disparity.

Traffic accident mortality rates in the US are double the OECD average, and total accident rates are triple.

This costs America about $165 billion a year.

The 'overpayment' of Americans on healthcare for each category are as follows:
Obesity: $95 billion
true.
Diabetes: $115 billion
true
Prescriptions: $125 billion
more like $150 billion
Salaries: $220 billion+
I don't know the figure
Traffic: $100 billion
True

Also, sleep disorders cost about $40 billion, including the 1/3rd of car accidents they cause (and sleep deprivation).

Or $2,100 per person.

Interestingly, in 2006 the US was only $1900 per capita above the trend line for spending across countries. I just thought, maybe, some of you might be interested in the real reasons why US healthcare costs more than it 'should'.

Still, administrative costs, ICT, preventive care, a simple paying procedure, a large risk pool, equal access to care, and an entity that ranks health procedures and giving specific benefits to doctors for if their patients meet certain health levels all reduce costs. This is a fact, cutting costs by over $1,000 a capita. And yes, education and awareness are critical to to cutting these negative medical diseases.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 1:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 1:31:27 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:43:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The US leads the world in obesity rates, and obese people pay $1,500+ per year more than non-obese.

True. The US spends about $100 billion annually because of obesity.

$150 billion.

http://www.cdc.gov...

The US leads(or nearly) the world in diabetes rates. Diabetics spend 2.3 times as much on healthcare than non-diabetics.

The US spends $175 billion a year because of diabetes.

The US pays double the price for branded prescription drugs compared with Europe. Europe uses price controls, and pharmaceutical companies lose money on drugs they sell there. They make their profit by jacking up the price in America.

Ok.

Surgeons, Doctors, and Nurses earn approximately double in the US compared to the OECD average.

Canada has similar wages for medical professionals, and as I've said, this accounts for only 2% of the cost disparity.

No, it's more than that.

And no, Canada doesn't have similar wages.

Traffic accident mortality rates in the US are double the OECD average, and total accident rates are triple.

This costs America about $165 billion a year.

The 'overpayment' of Americans on healthcare for each category are as follows:
Obesity: $95 billion
true.
Diabetes: $115 billion
true
Prescriptions: $125 billion
more like $150 billion
Salaries: $220 billion+
I don't know the figure
Traffic: $100 billion
True

Also, sleep disorders cost about $40 billion, including the 1/3rd of car accidents they cause (and sleep deprivation).

Or $2,100 per person.

Interestingly, in 2006 the US was only $1900 per capita above the trend line for spending across countries. I just thought, maybe, some of you might be interested in the real reasons why US healthcare costs more than it 'should'.

Still, administrative costs, ICT, preventive care, a simple paying procedure, a large risk pool, equal access to care, and an entity that ranks health procedures and giving specific benefits to doctors for if their patients meet certain health levels all reduce costs. This is a fact, cutting costs by over $1,000 a capita. And yes, education and awareness are critical to to cutting these negative medical diseases.

Do you have a source for all those costs? Still, like I said, the majority of our 'disparity' comes from things that have nothing to do with SP.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 1:47:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 1:38:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 1:31:27 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 12:43:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The US leads the world in obesity rates, and obese people pay $1,500+ per year more than non-obese.

True. The US spends about $100 billion annually because of obesity.

$150 billion.

http://www.cdc.gov...

This. I was going to post this, but then I saw your 95 billion number below and changed it.

The US leads(or nearly) the world in diabetes rates. Diabetics spend 2.3 times as much on healthcare than non-diabetics.

The US spends $175 billion a year because of diabetes.

The US pays double the price for branded prescription drugs compared with Europe. Europe uses price controls, and pharmaceutical companies lose money on drugs they sell there. They make their profit by jacking up the price in America.

Ok.

Surgeons, Doctors, and Nurses earn approximately double in the US compared to the OECD average.

Canada has similar wages for medical professionals, and as I've said, this accounts for only 2% of the cost disparity.

No, it's more than that.

And no, Canada doesn't have similar wages.

I rechecked, so yeah you had this point correct.

Traffic accident mortality rates in the US are double the OECD average, and total accident rates are triple.

This costs America about $165 billion a year.

The 'overpayment' of Americans on healthcare for each category are as follows:
Obesity: $95 billion
true.
Diabetes: $115 billion
true
Prescriptions: $125 billion
more like $150 billion
Salaries: $220 billion+
I don't know the figure
Traffic: $100 billion
True

Also, sleep disorders cost about $40 billion, including the 1/3rd of car accidents they cause (and sleep deprivation).

Or $2,100 per person.

Interestingly, in 2006 the US was only $1900 per capita above the trend line for spending across countries. I just thought, maybe, some of you might be interested in the real reasons why US healthcare costs more than it 'should'.

Still, administrative costs, ICT, preventive care, a simple paying procedure, a large risk pool, equal access to care, and an entity that ranks health procedures and giving specific benefits to doctors for if their patients meet certain health levels all reduce costs. This is a fact, cutting costs by over $1,000 a capita. And yes, education and awareness are critical to to cutting these negative medical diseases.

Do you have a source for all those costs? Still, like I said, the majority of our 'disparity' comes from things that have nothing to do with SP.

http://www.debate.org...

My debate I'm currently in.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 3:34:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Roy actually gave a very good example of privatization lowering prices: eye surgery. It has become a commodity, because it is not covered on most public and private plans, thus the price has gone down and the value has gone up.

I think that the only way you're going to get people to pay attention to their health is if the government stops babying them. If you are fat and you smoke every day, you get the same government aid that a healthy person in the same economic bracket gets. If you let the free market do its thing, then unhealthy people will be forced to either take better care of themselves, or pay more in insurance for their unhealthy habits. Hitting someone in the check book always gets their attention.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 3:42:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 3:34:32 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Roy actually gave a very good example of privatization lowering prices: eye surgery. It has become a commodity, because it is not covered on most public and private plans, thus the price has gone down and the value has gone up.

I think that the only way you're going to get people to pay attention to their health is if the government stops babying them. If you are fat and you smoke every day, you get the same government aid that a healthy person in the same economic bracket gets. If you let the free market do its thing, then unhealthy people will be forced to either take better care of themselves, or pay more in insurance for their unhealthy habits. Hitting someone in the check book always gets their attention.

Do you have sources of the estimated savings with a "free market solution" like you are talking about?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 7:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 3:42:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/9/2012 3:34:32 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Roy actually gave a very good example of privatization lowering prices: eye surgery. It has become a commodity, because it is not covered on most public and private plans, thus the price has gone down and the value has gone up.

I think that the only way you're going to get people to pay attention to their health is if the government stops babying them. If you are fat and you smoke every day, you get the same government aid that a healthy person in the same economic bracket gets. If you let the free market do its thing, then unhealthy people will be forced to either take better care of themselves, or pay more in insurance for their unhealthy habits. Hitting someone in the check book always gets their attention.

Do you have sources of the estimated savings with a "free market solution" like you are talking about?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan