9 ms·

Even if all the bureaucracy of insurance went away, major operations would still likely be tens of thousands of dollars. How do you suggest people pay for that?

thanatos_dem 8y ago
We all do! Something something single payer. Edit: not sure why the downvotes, that’s the reality of things. If you want a more fully fleshed out thought, here you go: We would all contribute to the payment of expensive operations via taxes in a single payer system. In the current system we have insurance payments. It’s effectively the same, paying a small fee regularly, to subsidize the costs for expensive procedures for yourself and (surprise) others. What do you think happens if you pay into insurance your whole life and never need an expensive operation? You’re subsidizing others. Otherwise the insurance companies would be out of business. But with single payer, we cut out companies in the middle pulling a heafty profit for effectively the same system as we could get via taxes. Better?
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > We would all contribute to the payment of expensive operations via taxes in a single payer system. That's just insurance, managed by the state. > But with single payer, we cut out companies in the middle pulling a heafty profit Oh boy. Lets say I concede, for the sake of argument, that government can run a private business with the same efficiency, and that the profits it would make as private are given back to its consumers (healthcare.gov cost almost 2 billion dollars to make, remember that. Or Blue shield is actually a non-profit, and its not gobbling up the space by reinvesting its supposed profits). To add to that, the profits of healthcare insurances companies are not that large: they have a 6% operating margin, lower than other insurance companies. Cumulatively, the big companies must have around 20~30 billion dollars a year in profits. It's a staggering number, but in the healthspace thats nothing: only the subsidy of tax-exemption for insurance benefits is estimated to be 260 billion a year. You could eliminate that benefit and expand medicaid: but that would help the poor, and wreck the rich and the middle class together, which is often politically unfeasible. https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-1513302495-18f3710a-c0b4-4ce3-8b7f-894a755e6679.html https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insuranc... https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-insurance-companies-unreasonable-profits-1738941 https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-insurance-companies-un...
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I’d still prefer the state over private insurance companies (Medicare is well run and popular). As Steve Jobs said about Dropbox, you’re a feature (insurance companies) not a product.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      > I’d still prefer the state over private insurance companies (Medicare is well run and popular). And I vote accordingly. Thats perfectly reasonable, but no need to make a single payer system for that. Just allow medicare to compete in the open market. Thats a much smaller program with a lot less risk. Unfortunately the chances of such a plan to succeed are nil. Thats why big healthcare reform proposals want to strong-arm the position, with single-payer proposals. Its true medicare is popular, but remember it's free insurance for its patients today. If you eliminated the medicare payroll tax and made it a monthly payment, I assure you old people will not have the same opinion on the topic.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - vertex-four 8y ago
        The NHS “competes in the open market”, so to speak - you pay taxes to get free healthcare for everyone, then you can get private insurance which picks and chooses what it wants to treat and dumps complex cases back on the NHS. Routine treatment is also dealt with by some combination of the NHS and private pharmacies (for flu jabs etc), generally speaking. Unsurprisingly, private health insurance is not very popular here. It’s mostly just something people get through work. And I’ll remind you that we spend less per capita on our healthcare than the US does. I’m sure that if there was actually demand to meet that spending, private insurance here would happily eat it up - but there just doesn’t seem to be.
        conanbatt 8y ago
        If you get private health insurance, do you get your NHS contribution back? Thats what would make it "competing" in the open market. If you have to pay for it no matter what, there is no competition, there is double charging.
dkashbfldls 8y ago
Mutual aid, same as any other problem. Presumably if there aren’t the resources or people or they deserve not having kids they won’t. Anything else is hard to justify at all.
- badfrog 8y ago
  What is mutual aid? I haven't heard that phrase before.

thanatos_dem 8y ago

We all do! Something something single payer. Edit: not sure why the downvotes, that’s the reality of things. If you want a more fully fleshed out thought, here you go: We would all contribute to the payment of expensive operations via taxes in a single payer system. In the current system we have insurance payments. It’s effectively the same, paying a small fee regularly, to subsidize the costs for expensive procedures for yourself and (surprise) others. What do you think happens if you pay into insurance your whole life and never need an expensive operation? You’re subsidizing others. Otherwise the insurance companies would be out of business. But with single payer, we cut out companies in the middle pulling a heafty profit for effectively the same system as we could get via taxes. Better?

conanbatt 8y ago
> We would all contribute to the payment of expensive operations via taxes in a single payer system. That's just insurance, managed by the state. > But with single payer, we cut out companies in the middle pulling a heafty profit Oh boy. Lets say I concede, for the sake of argument, that government can run a private business with the same efficiency, and that the profits it would make as private are given back to its consumers (healthcare.gov cost almost 2 billion dollars to make, remember that. Or Blue shield is actually a non-profit, and its not gobbling up the space by reinvesting its supposed profits). To add to that, the profits of healthcare insurances companies are not that large: they have a 6% operating margin, lower than other insurance companies. Cumulatively, the big companies must have around 20~30 billion dollars a year in profits. It's a staggering number, but in the healthspace thats nothing: only the subsidy of tax-exemption for insurance benefits is estimated to be 260 billion a year. You could eliminate that benefit and expand medicaid: but that would help the poor, and wreck the rich and the middle class together, which is often politically unfeasible. https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-1513302495-18f3710a-c0b4-4ce3-8b7f-894a755e6679.html https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insuranc... https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-insurance-companies-unreasonable-profits-1738941 https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-insurance-companies-un...
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I’d still prefer the state over private insurance companies (Medicare is well run and popular). As Steve Jobs said about Dropbox, you’re a feature (insurance companies) not a product.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > I’d still prefer the state over private insurance companies (Medicare is well run and popular). And I vote accordingly. Thats perfectly reasonable, but no need to make a single payer system for that. Just allow medicare to compete in the open market. Thats a much smaller program with a lot less risk. Unfortunately the chances of such a plan to succeed are nil. Thats why big healthcare reform proposals want to strong-arm the position, with single-payer proposals. Its true medicare is popular, but remember it's free insurance for its patients today. If you eliminated the medicare payroll tax and made it a monthly payment, I assure you old people will not have the same opinion on the topic.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      The NHS “competes in the open market”, so to speak - you pay taxes to get free healthcare for everyone, then you can get private insurance which picks and chooses what it wants to treat and dumps complex cases back on the NHS. Routine treatment is also dealt with by some combination of the NHS and private pharmacies (for flu jabs etc), generally speaking. Unsurprisingly, private health insurance is not very popular here. It’s mostly just something people get through work. And I’ll remind you that we spend less per capita on our healthcare than the US does. I’m sure that if there was actually demand to meet that spending, private insurance here would happily eat it up - but there just doesn’t seem to be.
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        If you get private health insurance, do you get your NHS contribution back? Thats what would make it "competing" in the open market. If you have to pay for it no matter what, there is no competition, there is double charging.

dkashbfldls 8y ago

Mutual aid, same as any other problem. Presumably if there aren’t the resources or people or they deserve not having kids they won’t. Anything else is hard to justify at all.

badfrog 8y ago
What is mutual aid? I haven't heard that phrase before.