Health Care and the US Elections

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's better than what she tried.
Fortunately, Bill created some distractions
that de-railed many of his presidential efforts.
Remember? The presidue on the blue dress?

I remember his denial.

That phrase was a real meme over here.

"I did not have sex with this woman, miss monica lewinsky"

 

[wellwisher]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/19/health/health-care-rankings-high-income-nations-commonwealth-report/index.html

Despite the fact that socialized medicine would save you guys a bundle, you seem to routinely vote against it. What is the fear with socialized medicine?

Socialize medicine is not Democracy but Socialism, making it a threat to Democracy. The easiest way to know threats to Democracy is to ask if this is Socialism or Democratic. Free market is closer to Democracy. More choices are more Democratic.

Once Government controls medicine, there will be less services and higher prices. This is not bad, if you are a parasite, since there is no change in cost to you but you still get something for nothing. But someone who has to suddenly pay more for less will not be happy. For one thing, there will be less R&D for future medicines and procedures, since this costs money, has risk and there is no guarantee. Future medicine takes the free market entrepreneurial spirit, to take a risk, with the hope of finding the treasure. Bureaucrats will not take that risk for you, since they serve themselves. No middle or upper level manager will put his career on the line, if he wish to advance in the system. Everything slows down to avoid risk. What we have today, in medicine, will be it; stalled in time.

Government makes it hard to fire anyone, and therefore with a medicine monopoly and total job security, nobody needs to hustle or think in terms of pricing, quality and customer service. I remember my first government contractor job; DOE, and wanting to work fast and being approached to slow down, since I was making the status quo look bad. It was either be black balled; uncooperative technicians, or learn to pace myself and not make waves. This slow down leads to rationing and long lines, since hustling needed for good service is taboo.

If you expect something for nothing, anything is an update, compared to nothing. But if you are used to customers service and better pricing and quality as the way for a competitive market to stay ahead of the competition, you are in for a surprise; night mare.

I am hoping when Trump gets in, he can improve the government job philosophy and efficiency. If the Government had the proper free market attitude, it may actually work. But it will be a disaster, as the Government currently stands; lazy and self serving foot dragging with added red tape, to justify too many union people to ever do the job in a cost effective and innovative way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well the bottom line of anything including Healthcare is that somebody has to pay for it.

And it does get paid for in those countries. It just tends to be more efficient.

Also, often, the hospitals are government-run - or at least heavily government-regulated, so there's the ability to set prices for hospital services much lower than in fully for-profit systems.

So I'm actually curious what socialized medicine has done to the economies of those governments that bear the brunt of the costs and how it is unavoidable to experience extreme corruption at the government level that makes Healthcare even more expensive and not cheaper with the 'free' label attached. The reality of socialized medicine is that healthy people pay for the sick people and as long as healthy people outnumber the sick people you'll be fine with such a system until of course, you get more sick people than healthy people.

That's what my fear on socialized medicine is is that one day it's going to implode at some point in time.

But that's the situation with any system involving pooled risk, including private health insurance.

I'd say the risk of implosion is way greater in a for-profit system than in a public system, since whenever the day comes that an insurance company can no longer make what they deem to be sufficient profit, they can just stop offering health insurance.

... or they find ways to drop the most costly clients, which end up on some sort of public system of last resort, resulting in a worst-of-both-worlds system of privatized profits and socialized losses (along with a lot of people unnecessarily dead).

 

[Revoltingest]

In America there will be poor service, because the 100% of public money is wasted on wars.

I see that your research & math skills are as sharp as ever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Socialize medicine is not Democracy but Socialism, making it a threat to Democracy. The easiest way to know threats to Democracy is to ask if this is Socialism or Democratic. Free market is closer to Democracy. More choices are more Democratic.

Private healthcare is an example of a market failure, not a free market.

A number of factors - including a lack of competition due to natural barriers to entry as well as the threat of literal death if you don't purchase - makes the healthcare market in the US way, way off of a Pareto-efficient equilibrium.

 

[Estro Felino]

I see that your research & math skills are as sharp as ever.

When both dems and conservative say: we cannot afford universal healthcare.
But $2.313 trillion were spent on Afghanistan ...and it was all useless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's framed as a "capitalist" thing because it's all in the context of profits and making money.

But that only goes for the private health insurance companies. Which was my point.
For all other companies, it's not.

They don't want to pay more in taxes to pay for universal healthcare

But they won't....... I assure you that I pay less tax for universal healthcare then people in the US pay in premiums to private insurance for even less coverage then I enjoy.

Furthermore, those private insurance companies will actively look for reasons to NOT pay your bills.
In the system I enjoy, there's no such thing. Bills are paid, no questions asked.
There's no "ow, so you broke your leg while doing irresponsible stupid things? We don't cover stupidity"

, and it's obvious the insurance, pharmaceutical, and other healthcare-related businesses also want to earn high profits.

All those industries in Belgium earn loads of money.
There just are no middle men taking a piece of the pie, meaning it's cheaper for the consumer / patient.

They have very powerful, entrenched lobbies which are used to getting their way.

Sure. It takes some political balls. However, those insurance companies likely deal in all kinds of insurance and not just health insurance.

For the most part, they view the workforce as disposable and easily replaced, so they have very little incentive to care about their health or well-being.

Who's these "they" you are referring to here?

 

[fantome profane]

Says a foreigner who's unaware of
Hillary's proposal during Bill's reign.
I'm surprised that you're not dissing
her for this. Are you a fan now?

I am curious. Do you think people should be allowed to buy human organs? A kidney, a liver, a heart?

And if you do think that should be allowed, what impact would that have? And if you think it should not be allowed, why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

When both dems and conservative say: we cannot afford universal healthcare.
But $2.313 trillion were spent on Afghanistan ...and it was all useless.

Yer preach'n to the choir, girlie.
I see that God is punishing your country
by sending Boris to flood it. That's for
siding with Putin against Ukraine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I favor a single payer system that allows
private care to serve those able to pay.
It's a "Plan B" to avoid the inevitable
failure of government to properly fund
health care, thereby causing long waits
for poor service.

You mean as opposed to long waits that exist today in the US with a privately funded system?
I mentioned the other post that I had surgery earlier this year.

I went from housedoc visit (the day after I decided to do a housedoc visit) to being on the operating table in just 8 workdays. And within those 8 workdays, I had a doc visit, specialist consultation and MRI scan.

Off course certain things require longer waiting periods then others, but that more has to do with not having enough specialists in certain more rare fields then anything else. Changing the way things are funded isn't going to make a difference there.

Over here though, you also can't "buy" your way to get to the top of the priority list. Priority is decided based on severity and urgency. Not on the size of your wallet.

No matter how often I post this, lefties
continue to be utterly unaware of it.
Tis as though all you guys know is to which
tribe you've assigned each poster.

I'm just wondering how it's supposed to work and what the point is.

What would "plan B" offer for the extra money that "plan A" doesn't?
What would be the point? Would you just be paying more to get the same care?
If not, what would be the difference?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am curious. Do you think people should be allowed to buy human organs? A kidney, a liver, a heart?

In short....
Yes.

And if you do think that should be allowed, what impact would that have? And if you think it should not be allowed, why not?

I've read proposals for allowing compensation for organ donation.
I see merit in its reducing the number of needless deaths.

I'm curious too....
Have you investigated such proposals?
Would you consider such a method to reduce deaths?

 

[Wirey]

Socialize medicine is not Democracy but Socialism, making it a threat to Democracy. The easiest way to know threats to Democracy is to ask if this is Socialism or Democratic. Free market is closer to Democracy. More choices are more Democratic.

Socialized fire departments are socialism, not democracy. Socialized schools are socialism, not democracy. Socialized power distribution grids are socialism, not democracy. Socialized police forces are socialism, not democracy. Socialized highway systems are socialism, not democracy.

I'm sorry, your incredibly inane point was?

 

[Wirey]

I've read proposals for allowing compensation for organ donation.
I see merit in its reducing the number of needless deaths.

I have a codicil to my will forbidding organ donation without compensation for my beneficiaries. Probably won't hold up in court, but if the laws change.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's framed as a "capitalist" thing because it's all in the context of profits and making money. They don't want to pay more in taxes to pay for universal healthcare, and it's obvious the insurance, pharmaceutical, and other healthcare-related businesses also want to earn high profits. They have very powerful, entrenched lobbies which are used to getting their way. For the most part, they view the workforce as disposable and easily replaced, so they have very little incentive to care about their health or well-being.

But wild part is that those industries are at odds with other industries that also have major bargaining power. American health insurance is mostly tied to employment, so higher healthcare system profits directly translate into higher costs for every industry.

Look at all the recent outcry over increases to minimum wage... but a dollar is a dollar. Whether a company's labour costs go up $1/h/worker because of minimum wage increases or $1/h/worker because health insurance rates increase, it's still the same cost. If anything, the health insurance cost increase is worse, because at least increasing wages helps to attract and retain staff.

I'm surprised that there isn't as much of a corporate outcry about health insurance as there is about the minimum wage.

I remember about a decade ago when GM was closing a bunch of plants. IIRC, they originally planned to close 4 - 3 in the US and 1 in Ontario - but then they decided they needed more production capacity than originally planned and decided to keep one plant open for a few years more.

The plant they decided to keep open was the Canadian plant. Reporting at the time said it was because costs were lower overall in Canada despite workers getting paid the same wage, since the Ontario healthcare system reduced GM's net costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean as opposed to long waits that exist today in the US with a privately funded system?

As an avid health care consumer,
I've endured no long waits.

I mentioned the other post that I had surgery earlier this year.

I went from housedoc visit (the day after I decided to do a housedoc visit) to being on the operating table in just 8 workdays. And within those 8 workdays, I had a doc visit, specialist consultation and MRI scan.

Off course certain things require longer waiting periods then others, but that more has to do with not having enough specialists in certain more rare fields then anything else. Changing the way things are funded isn't going to make a difference there.

Over here though, you also can't "buy" your way to get to the top of the priority list. Priority is decided based on severity and urgency. Not on the size of your wallet.

I'd rather not be limited to solely what government
officials determine what I need & when. It shouldn't
be illegal for me to hire docs to provide a service
that government won't in a reasonable period of time.

I'm just wondering how it's supposed to work and what the point is.

See below.

What would "plan B" offer for the extra money that "plan A" doesn't?

I envision Plan B being paid for by the one buying the service.

What would be the point?

Getting better care sooner.

Would you just be paying more to get the same care?

See above.

If not, what would be the difference?

See above.
Are they because you oppose government
allowing a private alternative to people
willing & able to pay?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Socialize medicine is not Democracy but Socialism, making it a threat to Democracy.

Once Government controls medicine, there will be less services and higher prices.

Every universal health care system in Europe proves this to be complete nonsense.

This is not bad, if you are a parasite, since there is no change in cost to you but you still get something for nothing. But someone who has to suddenly pay more for less will not be happy.

Being a healthy person in Belgium vs being a healthy person in the US, as a belgian citizen you will pay LESS then a US citizen will pay premiums to private insurance.
And the coverage of the more costly insurance in the US will be LESS then the coverage you get from the health care system in Belgium.
Furthermore, the system in Belgium will not be actively trying to find reasons NOT to pay your medical bills, should you have any.

For one thing, there will be less R&D for future medicines and procedures, since this costs money, has risk and there is no guarantee.

False also.
Belgian R&D into cancer at universities is actually leading research on the world stage.

Future medicine takes the free market entrepreneurial spirit, to take a risk, with the hope of finding the treasure. Bureaucrats will not take that risk for you, since they serve themselves. No middle or upper level manager will put his career on the line, if he wish to advance in the system. Everything slows down to avoid risk. What we have today, in medicine, will be it; stalled in time.

On what planet do you live?

Government makes it hard to fire anyone, and therefore with a medicine monopoly and total job security, nobody needs to hustle or think in terms of pricing, quality and customer service.

You seem to think that a universal health care program means that the health sector as a whole (including medical R&D, pharma, etc) is controlled and paid for by the government. That is hilarious.

If you expect something for nothing, anything is an update, compared to nothing. But if you are used to customers service and better pricing and quality as the way for a competitive market to stay ahead of the competition, you are in for a surprise; night mare.

Universal health care is not "something for nothing". I pay for universal health care. Every citizen pays for it.
It's not that different from private health insurance.

The main difference is that it isn't run by a third party that has incentive to not pay your bills AND charge you a premium because they are an organization that at bottom only exists to make money. And they make money by taking your money while giving nothing back.

As opposed to when it is government run... then it's not for profit, just like the police force is not run for profit.
Then it is run to keep the populace healthy. Just like a police force is run to keep the populace safe.

If you give a private insurance 100 bucks, then they want to only use 50 bucks of that to pay medical bills while keeping 50 bucks for their profit.
A government run health care service will use the full 100 bucks. They have no incentive to "make profit" at the expense of health services.

I am hoping when Trump gets in, he can improve the government job philosophy and efficiency. If the Government had the proper free market attitude, it may actually work. But it will be a disaster, as the Government currently stands; lazy and self serving foot dragging with added red tape, to justify too many union people to ever do the job in a cost effective and innovative way.

lol, good luck with that.

 

[crossfire]

relevance?

Technically the military is pure socialism (as far as health care is concerned at the very least.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a codicil to my will forbidding organ donation without compensation for my beneficiaries. Probably won't hold up in court, but if the laws change.....

I'm giving all mine away for free.
(But only after my demise.)
My only stipulation is that I not be buried
bottom up to be used as a bicycle rack.

BTW, be specific about when
your parts are to be harvested.

 

[Revoltingest]

Technically the military is pure socialism.

No, not at all.
Socialism is about government owning the "means of production".
The military is the means of destruction. So not socialism.

I know. Not only do I have access to dictionaries,
I once worked as an engineer designing weapons.
Yes....it's an argument from authority.

 

[crossfire]

No, not at all.
Socialism is about government owning the "means of production".
The military is the means of destruction. So not socialism.

I know. Not only do I have access to dictionaries,
I once worked as an engineer designing weapons.
Yes....it's an argument from authority.

See my edit "as far as health care is concerned, at the very least."