5 ms·
The most frustrating issue with the Bernie Sanders single payer campaign is that they flat out lie saying that the reason why healthcare is expensive is because
by conanbatt 8y ago
The most frustrating issue with the Bernie Sanders single payer campaign is that they flat out lie saying that the reason why healthcare is expensive is because it is private.
Healthcare hasnt been so expensive forever, it was actually very cheap decades ago, when it was still private. The efficiency issues are not public vs private. Its mostly regulatory burdens.
- furyg3 8y agoAs someone who lives in a country where the regulatory burdens are higher and healthcare is cheaper, you are very wrong.
- conanbatt 8y agoShare your country and I will be very much able to show you why the burden of regulation is worse in the us, at least in terms of price. And lets add one more thing: we can compare the US to itself, to 50 years ago, and show that 50 years ago healthcare was super cheap, and still private.
- scarface74 8y agoYes regulatory burdens like actually being forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions, not being able to drop people once they use thier insurance and not being able to exclude certain conditions....
- zaarn 8y agoOh, no! How dare people use their healthcare insurance for healthcare! How would the insurance company CEO's feed their children? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
- Symmetry 8y agoI'd be very curious as to what country you live in. I wasn't aware of any country with more rules around the provision of healthcare than the US has.
- scarface74 8y agoMost other countries have government run healthcare. By definition, they all have more government involvement.
- conanbatt 8y agoThats not how you measure the effect of regulatory burden on price. If the us government turned into single-payer, the doctors are still private, but the government is the insurance.
- scarface74 8y agoAlmost all doctors in the UK work for the NHS. Most countries with single payer also negotiate drug prices and reimbursement rates. So how would you have the government setting prices and reimbursement rates and not have a higher "regulatory burden"? How could that possibly be a free market system/.
- conanbatt 8y ago> Most countries with single payer also negotiate drug prices and reimbursement rates The government itself barred Medicare from negotiating drug prices. If it is incapable of overturning such a policy, why should it be entrusted with 10x more patients? > So how would you have the government setting prices and reimbursement rates and not have a higher "regulatory burden"? You could have the government give a health-stipend for insurance for all americans, so its government funded, kind of like school vouchers. Today medicare instituted fee-for-service, which means you have to document every procedure you do and you get reimbursed based on that, which I believe is the core reason why there is so much red-tape in Healthcare. This would allow all patients to choose which insurance fits best, and unleash major competitive forces on price.
- conanbatt 8y agoMore like burdens like limiting the amount of doctors available, not allowing the importation of foreign drugs, tying healthcare to the employer, etc. You can manage the problem of pre-existing conditions in an insurance system with a subsidy, instead of a mandate that forces a 20 year old minimum wage person to work part time, because the employer cannot afford to pay healthcare for him.
- scarface74 8y agoMore like burdens like limiting the amount of doctors available, There has never been a law in the US limiting the number of doctors available. tying healthcare to the employer, etc. There was never a law tying healthcare to the employer. Before the ACA, if you had a preexisting condition, that was the only way that you could get insurance - by being part of a covered group. The insurance company wouldn’t cover you. You can manage the problem of pre-existing conditions in an insurance system with a subsidy, instead of a mandate that forces a 20 year old minimum wage person to work part time, because the employer cannot afford to pay healthcare for him. So we need universal coverage like the rest of the civilized world....
- toasterlovin 8y ago> There has never been a law in the US limiting the number of doctors available. My understanding is that the supply of doctors is limited by the amount of residency slots and that is limited somehow by whatever professional association licenses doctors.
- conanbatt 8y ago> There has never been a law in the US limiting the number of doctors available. There is at least one such limits to about 1/4 of 65.000. And even within that limit they have an irrational amount of extra requirements. > There was never a law tying healthcare to the employer. Sorry but in the US, health insurance is provided by the employer because it is a tax-exempt expenditure. Tax it and see wages diminish considerably once employers pass the cost to the employees. > So we need universal coverage like the rest of the civilized world.... The uncivilized world also has universal coverage. That should be a red flag, shouldn't it?
- ionised 8y agoThis is demonstrably untrue in pretty much any other developed western democracy.
- conanbatt 8y agoPlease make the demonstration
- conjectures 8y ago"The efficiency issues are not public vs private. Its mostly regulatory burdens." The phrase 'doubling down' comes to mind here.
- conanbatt 8y agoI agree: going single-payer is absolutely doubling down. Medicare itself, today, has more patients than most national health programs like Canada, and it is also more expensive than them. We already know medicare is not cheaper than other countries health systems. And do you believe that expanding medicare 10x will make it more or less efficient? Because I believe it will do worse, a lot worse.
- specialist 8y agoRhetoric that is mostly correct.