14 ms·

To be fair, they would also be freed of the health care costs that are currently well above $10k/year for your example couple.

by beat 11y ago

TrevorJ 11y ago
I wouldn't say well above, but probably 10k or a bit less.
koenigdavidmj 11y ago
That makes sense for people paying for their own insurance on the exchange, but not people at "non-manager tech jobs" at megacorps. They're most likely on the company's group plan, and most of those costs are not seen in the employee's salary.
- undersuit 11y ago
  They were this year as most everyone should have received a 1095 from their employer.
  - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
    What I mean is that I highly doubt a move to single-payer would involve an instant salary bump equal to the company's expenses to keep me in a health plan.
jjtheblunt 11y ago
I believe your calculation of the healthcare cost for such a couple is something like 10x too high.
maxharris 11y ago
And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Prepare to pay the doctor under the table (at the risk of criminal prosecution), or stand in line until you feel better. If health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. (Unfettered pioneers are left free to pay high prices at first, then economies of scale bring prices on that new innovation to ever-lower levels. Let me count the ways that is not the case in health care today!)
- lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
  Most consensus is that normal market forces don't work very well for health care for a variety of reasons. Firstly people are notoriously terrible in predicting what coverage they might need (so any choice offered becomes of nebulous utility right off the bat). Secondly, because of the nature of health emergencies, most people are not in a good condition to investigate their options at the time of care. You can spend months researching the optimal smart phone for your budget and use case, you spend the same amount of time on looking into your cancer treatment you'll end up in the same place as Steve Jobs. For the average consumer, demand is very inelastic when it comes to ~not dieing~ and availability of information + expertise to evaluate said information is sparse. Single payer is the far more efficient solution for everyone except the middle men profiting off the current system.
- bubtubgub 11y ago
  > And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Why would nationalized healthcare prevent the opening of private clinics? > health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. You seem to not realize that some people can't afford food and clothing, forget iphones.

To be fair, they would also be freed of the health care costs that are currently well above $10k/year for your example couple.

by beat 11y ago

To be fair, they would also be freed of the health care costs that are currently well above $10k/year for your example couple.

TrevorJ 11y ago

I wouldn't say well above, but probably 10k or a bit less.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago

That makes sense for people paying for their own insurance on the exchange, but not people at "non-manager tech jobs" at megacorps. They're most likely on the company's group plan, and most of those costs are not seen in the employee's salary.

undersuit 11y ago
They were this year as most everyone should have received a 1095 from their employer.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  What I mean is that I highly doubt a move to single-payer would involve an instant salary bump equal to the company's expenses to keep me in a health plan.

jjtheblunt 11y ago

I believe your calculation of the healthcare cost for such a couple is something like 10x too high.

maxharris 11y ago

And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Prepare to pay the doctor under the table (at the risk of criminal prosecution), or stand in line until you feel better. If health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. (Unfettered pioneers are left free to pay high prices at first, then economies of scale bring prices on that new innovation to ever-lower levels. Let me count the ways that is not the case in health care today!)

lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
Most consensus is that normal market forces don't work very well for health care for a variety of reasons. Firstly people are notoriously terrible in predicting what coverage they might need (so any choice offered becomes of nebulous utility right off the bat). Secondly, because of the nature of health emergencies, most people are not in a good condition to investigate their options at the time of care. You can spend months researching the optimal smart phone for your budget and use case, you spend the same amount of time on looking into your cancer treatment you'll end up in the same place as Steve Jobs. For the average consumer, demand is very inelastic when it comes to ~not dieing~ and availability of information + expertise to evaluate said information is sparse. Single payer is the far more efficient solution for everyone except the middle men profiting off the current system.
bubtubgub 11y ago
> And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Why would nationalized healthcare prevent the opening of private clinics? > health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. You seem to not realize that some people can't afford food and clothing, forget iphones.