patrick.net

b u m p

There are a couple of things that are commonly argued not to be run for profit, such as law enforcement, military, public parks, hospitals and general medical care and so on.. That doesn't mean they should be run on deficits either though. Universal health care works if it is funded and not running up deficits. Most countries that have universal healthcare require people to always pay in (fees, taxes etc.) as this is the only way insurance can work and be funded, Obviously you need a big enough working population at any point in time that can fund the people who cannot afford to pay in at the time. Having basic healthcare run with very competitive (e.g. much cheaper) rates on at least a break-even basis by the government is an option, while additional services, non-essential services such as plastic surgery or reproductive help and general special requests can be covered by private insurances.

mell says

Most countries that have universal healthcare require people to always pay in (fees, taxes etc.) as this is the only way insurance can work and be funded,

The American government already spends more on healthcare as a share of GDP than the British government. The difference is the British NHS covers the entire population, with no special fees or "mandates," and life expectancy in Britain is longer than here. Insurance existed for centuries without being mandatory; the "individual mandate" was a quid pro quo to buy lobbyists' support with increased spending. Bottom line, we are already paying for universal healthcare, we just aren't receiving it, because our system is designed to increase revenue, not to improve health. Officially more than a third of all medical spending in America is waste, fraud, and abuse; the actual number is probably more than half.

Patrick is right about the problem, but unfortunately both major parties work for the same revenue recipients, so their slogans devolve into a beer commercial ("tastes great" vs "less filling"): more $ vs less accountability. The Democrats make the system even more overpriced than it already is, the Republicans want to make it even less accountable than it already is. And of course the lobbyists and PR firms control Faux news, but they also control the rest of the commercial news; literally a majority of the ads on TV news come from PhRMA, and who pays the piper calls the tune. Newspaper "journalists" accept speaking fees from AHIP and even the tobacco companies. (What do these companies have in common? They both kill their customers for profit.) In 2008, then-Senators Obama and Biden campaigned on a very good plan with no mandates; pity we never heard about it again.

curious2 says

with no special fees or "mandates

lol your insane the uk has a 17.5% VAT

you will find yourself being taxed 3 to 6 times as a regular uk citizen on goods and services.

The UK government spends 50 pence on every $1 of revenue!

95%+ TAX on gas!

curious2 says

Bottom line, we are already paying for universal healthcare, we just aren't receiving it

Yes, that's true!

curious2 says

Officially more than a third of all medical spending in America is waste, fraud, and abuse; the actual number is probably more than half.

Patrick is right about the problem, but unfortunately both major parties work for the same revenue recipients, so their slogans devolve into a beer commercial ("tastes great" vs "less filling"): more $ vs less accountability.

Sure, this wasn't a plug for Obamacare, it was just to show that it can work and does work in certain countries (I would actually take a few countries out as the services you get are inferior to the ones you get in the US, but enough countries are definitely competitive enough to prove the point). But can it work in the US due to the problems you mentioned? Who knows, not betting the farm on it.

Politicofact says

your insane...The UK government spends 50 pence on every $1 of revenue!

American government spending is around 40% of GDP, and if you add what Americans pay for corporate medical insurance the sum exceeds Britain's 50%. Honestly I find it difficult to believe your avatar's claim of being a lawyer, because a lawyer would know the difference between "your" and "you're", and the difference between pence and Dollars (50p/$1 would be around 80% of GDP). Your name-calling reminds me of Marcus, who pretends to be a math teacher. Both of you remind me of the old cartoon from The New Yorker: a mutt explains to a Dalmation, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

We used to have BC/BS in this country, until a free market fanatic in the 70s got a law passed forcing companies with more than 50 employees to offer HMOs to employees. The young took the HMO (Babyboomers at the time); the older and those with children or problems stayed with BC/BS. Those were the seeds of destruction.

I remember as a kid going to the doctor. At first, he had just one F/T office gal. By the time I was 12, he had three F/T and two P/T office workers to keep up with all the "Wonderful Choices" of the various for-profit health care plans.

@bgamall4

I really wish somebody would look into the Hospital/Lab-Insurance Company relationship. I don't have the time (or aptitude or understanding) to delve into it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see interconnecting relationships between for profit Labs and Hospitals and Insurance Companies to keep prices high.

thunderlips11 says

I wouldn't be surprised to see interconnecting relationships between for profit Labs and Hospitals and Insurance Companies to keep prices high.

It's happening in plain sight: insurance companies are buying hospitals, corporate practice groups, everything:

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/the-quiet-takeover-insurers-buying-physicians-and-hospitals.html

It's accelerating now because of the impending MLR requirements, i.e. at least 80%/85% of premiums need to be shifted from the insurance side of the business to the medical side. Easy to do when the same corporation owns both sides. Result: higher prices.

Does China, India, Mexico, and Brazil have socialized medicine? Aren't those the countries that we primarily lose jobs to and shouldn't we be comparing ourselves to them instead of other industrialized countries that are really more like economic has beens?

curious2 says

It's accelerating now because of the impending MLR requirements, i.e. at least 80%/85% of premiums need to be shifted from the insurance side of the business to the medical side. Easy to do when the same corporation owns both sides. Result: higher prices.

Interesting. I always felt there was more than just "we negotiated with these guys" reasons for having enrollees use particular providers.

Know what else is F**ked up? My CPAP machine was $400 new from China. It cost "my insurance" $900 to rent it, probably from themselves (ie a DME store they themselves own). I ended up having it for 6 months. You can't buy CPAP machines without a perscription. Huh? Somebody is going to die from forcing air in their lungs? Seriously?

Everyone should know that if all health care is left to the private sector, prices will fall & quality will improve.lol

This is America, dammit. I have the right to make insurance monopolies rich at my expense!