patrick.net

just any guy says

In contrast, the government has no motivation to streamline administrative processes as evidenced by how Medicare/Medicaid is today because they know they'll get funding from the taxpayer and not go out of business

Other countries manage.

HEalth Care costs are so high now, that if we implemented single payer, the administrators would have no choice but to figure out how to streamline the processes and also use their negotiating power to hold prices and costs down.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

If it's business, the only motivation is profit. Everything else is secondary.

...including lives, which is why capitalism does not work for health care.

Capitalism works fine, if it wasn't for capitalism we'd be all dying off left and right from our unhealthy lifestyle choices.

FortWayne says

Capitalism works fine, if it wasn't for capitalism we'd be all dying off left and right from our unhealthy lifestyle choices.

If it wasn't for the socialistic military we'd all be speaking German now.

Capitalism works great as long as certain conditions are met, one of which is elastic demand. Unfortunately, healthcare demand is highly inelastic. Which is why healthcare costs can rise at such high rates year after year.

FortWayne says

Capitalism works fine, if it wasn't for capitalism we'd be all dying off left and right from our unhealthy lifestyle choices.

www.youtube.com/embed/zkYCf4h5XgE

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Capitalism works fine, if it wasn't for capitalism we'd be all dying off left and right from our unhealthy lifestyle choices.

www.youtube.com/embed/zkYCf4h5XgE

Since michael Moore's film sicko was released we've implemented massive extra government intervention to fix healthcare. How's that worked?

How much longer will you pretend government intervention in healthcare isn't the problem?

https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

Looks to me like the US doesn't have enough government in healthcare. More government seems to lead to lower costs.

joeyjojojunior says

Looks to me like the US doesn't have enough government in healthcare. More government seems to lead to lower costs.

Lol, and you call this a free market?

CBOEtrader says

Lol, and you call this a free market?

No, I don't believe I did. What I said was that the lowest cost healthcare systems are LESS market oriented than the US system. So, it would appear that less free market leads to lower costs.

CBOEtrader says

Since michael Moore's film sicko was released we've implemented massive extra government intervention to fix healthcare. How's that worked?

The ACA is a massive extra government intervention? I think not. It's the Republican plan from the 1990s. It does not have
- single payer
- and end to private insurance
- divorcing employment from health insurance
- nationalization of insurance
- nationalization of health care

The ACA is the old system with lipstick. If anything it was a give away to big private insurance companies because of the individual mandate.

joeyjojojunior says

More government seems to lead to lower costs.

This has been proven time and time again.

joeyjojojunior says

What I said was that the lowest cost healthcare systems are LESS market oriented than the US system.

Your chart contradicts this assertion.

CBOEtrader says

Your chart contradicts this assertion.

Care to elaborate?

Here's an interesting article regarding single payer and healthcare in general. I'm intrigued by the idea of single payer for basic healthcare. However, Medicare is single payer for the elderly, and it's really expensive and onerous. I believe the problem is that Medicare provides too much access to expensive treatment options, so the costs get out of control. Again, if we went with Medicare for all, it would need to be not-cutting-edge healthcare and then people can buy private insurance for more advanced coverage.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/855271

CBOEtrader says

joeyjojojunior says

What I said was that the lowest cost healthcare systems are LESS market oriented than the US system.

Your chart contradicts this assertion.

I'm sorry but I don't see cause and effect of free market meaning more expensive. We have far from a free market system today...it's bastardized. As I just posted, an option would be Medicare for all for standard healthcare (i.e., no cutting edge expensive care), but we would need to crack down on illegal immigration and provide states latitude to deploy work requirements. Then, let the free market reign for private insurance.

joeyjojojunior says

If it wasn't for the socialistic military we'd all be speaking German now.

It's not a socialistic military, we live in capitalism and what build great military is capitalism. if we were in socialism, we'd all be riding horse and buggies getting beat up by other countries.

just any guy says

I'm sorry but I don't see cause and effect of free market meaning more expensive.

That's because the opposite is true. Prior to 1965, healthcare grew at exactly the rate of CPI. Since government began interfering in the healthcare market costs have risen more than 20 times faster than the CPI.

Take today's prices, divide by 20 to get an estimate of what healthcare should cost in a free market.

"I'm sorry but I don't see cause and effect of free market meaning more expensive. We have far from a free market system today...it's bastardized"

It's simple. Capitalism performs poorly in markets with inelastic demand. It allows companies to raise prices as high as they want with no reduction in demand. That is the cause and effect.

Blurtman says

Should we all be responsible for everyone else's health care?

You mean like EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY ? Yes. Not on'y becasue we know it would cost less, but also becasue it's the right thing to do.

marcus says

Yes. Not on'y becasue we know it would cost less, but also becasue it's the right thing to do.

Incomplete. 2 or 3?

just any guy says

joeyjojojunior says

Ironman says

So you really think Medicare is administered and regulated well and is very cost efficient?

It's more cost efficient than private insurance is.

This is an interesting analysis because comparing administrative overhead of Medicare vs private health plans is apples and oranges. For example with integrated health systems, they handle most of the claims processing and adjudication overhead...not Medicare or Medicaid. So, it is hard to compare.

If you ask independent providers who is easier to work with, most will likely say private insurers because the paperwork and guidelines for Medicare is outrageous. From what I've seen, this is a symptom of how government operates...with far too much bureaucracy and overhead.

Look at auto insurers....

Private Health Insurance is nothing but bureaucracy and overhead. It's the most useless, inefficient jobs program in the history of this planet

joeyjojojunior says

Capitalism performs poorly in markets with inelastic demand

You are conflating ideas. Define capitalism. I think you mean free-markets which is not the same thing. Regardless, no system has outperformed free-markets regardless of the elasticity of demand.

Also, most healthcare is very elastic. 98% of what any of have done in a hospital is elastic.

"Regardless, no system has outperformed free-markets regardless of the elasticity of demand."

Source? Because every chart, graph, or table I've seen shows that free market health care is the most expensive and worst performing system.

zzyzzx says

Slavery was a feature of capitalism that was institutionalized by the American South, who are today's "freedom caucus". The lies and hypocrisy of this post are shameless.