91–100 of 206 posts
How do we compare apples to apples (between countries)? Compare health expenditure per capita (public and private) with multiple health indexes. I.e. get the bang for buck . In the list of nations with the best bang for buck healthcare programs, you will notice that top 20 healthcare programs are mostly single payer. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf But there are single payer healthcare systems with bad heal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with a 'each state do their own thing' solution is the very problem with health care in this country in general - the freeloader problem. If California implements a single payer system, it would make people in other states more likely to choose not to get healthcare; if they get sick, they can just move to California. This is the reason the ACA has the 'individual mandate' to go along with preventing the…
I'm not convinced this is insurmountable. How do countries with single payer handle this? Surely you could require an newly established resident who wants treatment to pay a portion since they hadn't been funding it directly via taxes, and then add a further penalty if they move back out of state within a certain period of time (to discourage moving in-state just for treatment).
In Canada, generally you have to be a legal resident (i.e. hold a valid immigration status, not just limited to permanent resident or citizen) of the relevant province, and actually living there for a majority of the time, before being eligible for coverage under the province's health plan.
See e.g. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/ohip/ohipfaq_...
California would probably have to add a waiting period since not all US residents would otherwise have coverage, as in Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a truly free market health care system would be substantially cheaper Why would you imagine that? Regardless... You must also then ask the question, whether a "truly free market health care system" would be ethical.
It's a fun thought experiment, but we'd never do it. A free market would look something like this: 1) everybody buys their own insurance in a genuinely free marketplace (this is ENTIRELY not the case now and would probably require significant gov intervention to defeat cartel-seeking behavior from insurance co's. There are good reasons insurance is so highly regulated, only the first of which is that insurance compan…
I imagine both single-payer and a truly free market health care system would be substantially cheaper than the current system -- which has none of the benefits of either approach. With the federal government unable to act, turning healthcare back to the states to test a number of different solutions seems entirely reasonable. Let California try single-payer and Texas try something different -- after a few years see i…
If by "truly free market" you mean that healthy people can opt out of being insured, no, that would drive the costs up. Risk selection is a very driver of prices in health insurance. If you can spread the risk between healthy and sick people, the price goes down. If you can't, the price goes up. Secondly, having a population that has no health insurance means less prevention, i.e. worse health problems down the road,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fun thought experiment, but we'd never do it. A free market would look something like this: 1) everybody buys their own insurance in a genuinely free marketplace (this is ENTIRELY not the case now and would probably require significant gov intervention to defeat cartel-seeking behavior from insurance co's. There are good reasons insurance is so highly regulated, only the first of which is that insurance compan…
"2) if you can't pay, you die in the gutter." No. It is simply false. Even a 100% free market does not exclude charity.
Lotta people talk about charity as a replacement for government services, but folks give around 3% of their income to charity (tax deductible) in the US. That ain't gonna get it done. Not even close.
People would have you believe they would give more if they didn't pay as much in taxes, but there is not one shred of evidence that is the case based on variations in local tax rates. And that's a hell of a gap to bridge based on a such a dubious promise.
Occam's razor, and the available evidence, suggests that people would just pocket the difference and the poor can go to hell. They're happy to argue the point until they're blue in the face, but if the past year has taught us nothing at all, it's that people are more than capable of crafting any number of passionate arguments around their self-interest, truth be damned.
I imagine both single-payer and a truly free market health care system would be substantially cheaper than the current system -- which has none of the benefits of either approach. With the federal government unable to act, turning healthcare back to the states to test a number of different solutions seems entirely reasonable. Let California try single-payer and Texas try something different -- after a few years see i…
You can't have a truly free market health care system: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-can... http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf The federal government already pays for 64.3% of healthcare costs http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/government-funds-nearl... . In a centralized managed system this would likely cover the cost of all healthcare. It's roughly what other industrial…
How do we compare apples to apples (between countries)? Compare health expenditure per capita (public and private) with multiple health indexes. I.e. get the bang for buck . In the list of nations with the best bang for buck healthcare programs, you will notice that top 20 healthcare programs are mostly single payer. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf But there are single payer healthcare systems with bad heal…
This is a really good point. One problem I think though is that not everyone will come out ahead in a single payer system. Our system is explicitly organized around the fact that you must pay for care and we have the best and most expensive care in the world. Our system is setup so that those at the top of the economic ladder can buy a level of care they could not get anywhere else. They will undoubtedly receive wors…
It simply does not follow that, because single payer systems offer better value in terms of benefit gained for the dollars spent, those efficiency improvements mean it's possible for everyone to come out ahead. Those last few iotas of healthcare improvement are a lot more expensive than the lower-hanging fruit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. Transparency in healthcare + Single payer (by the government) = Efficiency (see sources and explanation in my original comment) So yes, putting the US government in the middle is what I'm suggesting. Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?
"Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?" Um...
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This simplification seems disingenuous. Would switching to single payer solve your last sentence / quote from the article? Aka, would putting the US government in the middle make things simpler and more efficient (and cheaper) for the end user (health care patients)? I can't say I'm convinced. Compare with the current system, where any given user is still effectively dealing with a single payer -- their insurance pro…
I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. Transparency in healthcare + Single payer (by the government) = Efficiency (see sources and explanation in my original comment) So yes, putting the US government in the middle is what I'm suggesting. Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?
Was it ever?
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/common-sense-with-dan-ca...