4 ms·

> The idea that this is going to be more expensive/isn’t paid for is ridiculous because it eliminates all of the money spent by private corporations on what sho

> The idea that this is going to be more expensive/isn’t paid for is ridiculous because it eliminates all of the money spent by private corporations on what should be a public service This is just a plain criticism of capitalism in general. Does this logic apply to everything else? Like food? Housing? In practice we have a great example with public education: an expensive, unequal base level that americans avoid if they have the money to. > It’s crazy that the government was able to shirk it’s responsibility to look after people and place that unfair burden on businesses. > . It’s time to relieve businesses of the burden of dealing with their employees health I agree, although I would like to note that historically this made sense from an administrative standpoint. Back in the 20's, administrative work of insurance was like half the cost. It wouldn't be so expensive today with electronic payments and all. Its the same logic behind payroll taxes (those that work pay it) mostly because its easy to do, not because its fair or good. Its true that businesses would love not to manage training people about healthcare, but then the government will have to do it and that won't come cheap. That will be an interesting challenge. The M4A plan of no copays no nothing, that would eliminate that instruction is a pipe dream. > It doesn’t increase the size of government, those are flow-through dollars, they go in one side and out the other. Hey come in. <They are in a federal bank account.> <They are processed by a claims office that decides what to pay and what not to pay> They come out. Whatever claims are not paid, its money leftover for spending in whatever initiative the government wants. In fact advocates for socialized medicine like Sarah Kliff want that to happen so the government can set prices. Since its your only employer (no competition with private insurance) you say you accept it or you close down. > If anything consolidating these disparate services should represent an administrative efficiency And if it doesn't, whats the way out? > Yes the government can then change health policy, that’s the point. Maybe thats your point, but I don't want in on that. I dont want the government deciding for me. So I dont want to go thing by thing: we disagree, you envision a government administration to be great and fantastic, and I see it as unfair and oppressive. Lets compromise on our different of beliefs: lets advocate for a public option. Government offers something, insurance offers theirs, they compete in the open market, you get what you want and I dont need to confront. I do want some other things though!

arcticbull 8y ago
> This is just a plain criticism of capitalism in general. Does this logic apply to everything else? Like food? Housing? In practice we have a great example with public education: an expensive, unequal base level that americans avoid if they have the money to. The reason public education is bad is because Americans have decided to hate their government (which is an extension of themselves) and not invest in services in the public interest. It's not inherent to the system, it's a product of what you put into it: apathy and distrust. The same just isn't true in other countries. In your criticism of public education you actually make a case for two-tier healthcare: I'd rather have a base level of schooling I can buy my way to "better quality" than leave anyone who can't afford private school out on the street with no education. Not everything needs a profit motive. Some things, the ones that lay a foundation for a free and fair society, such as police, fire, roads, railways, water, education and health, should be provided. This allows individuals to rise to the level of their abilities and merits without relying on the largesse of their family. This is the meritocratic American dream, in a lot of ways. There are plenty -- and I do mean plenty of ways to make money out there, it's not like socializing this eliminates capitalism. If anything, it bolsters it by allowing more people to pursue entrepreneurship. > Its true that businesses would love not to manage training people about healthcare, but then the government will have to do it and that won't come cheap. It is cheaper in every other country, and there's no reason it wouldn't be cheaper here. Analysis in a Koch-backed study showed it would be +/- 10% (either 10% cheaper or 10% more expensive depending on ability to control costs while covering 12% more people) -- so less per capita no matter what. [1] > Whatever claims are not paid, its money leftover for spending in whatever initiative the government wants. That's not how governments work, that's how private companies work. Private companies take left over money and distribute it to their shareholders. Whenever a private insurer denies a claim someone makes money. Governments distribute it back to the people. Their goal is not to make money, to have money left over, it's to provide service. If they can do it for less, they'll lower their budget. Not that it matters, single payer setting prices works just fine in Canada. You know that price transparency everyone in America is demanding? Here's Ontario's entire list of prices: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/physserv/sob_master20181115.pdf http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/physser... PET scan? That's $237.50 (vs. $5000 in the US). > And if it doesn't, whats the way out? Voting? > Maybe thats your point, but I don't want in on that. I dont want the government deciding for me. By voting you decide. That's government. It's an extension of the people's will. You are in fact deciding. I'm sorry you feel like that doesn't work here, and that in fact you'd rather a faceless, un-accountable corporation with an interest in making a profit decide than a transparent, public good service you can control the leadership of. The government "decides" for you in so many other ways, it's ridiculous to draw the line here but even if you were to, offering a public plan strictly increases your options. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/upshot/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-cost-estimates.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/upshot/medica...

arcticbull 8y ago

> This is just a plain criticism of capitalism in general. Does this logic apply to everything else? Like food? Housing? In practice we have a great example with public education: an expensive, unequal base level that americans avoid if they have the money to. The reason public education is bad is because Americans have decided to hate their government (which is an extension of themselves) and not invest in services in the public interest. It's not inherent to the system, it's a product of what you put into it: apathy and distrust. The same just isn't true in other countries. In your criticism of public education you actually make a case for two-tier healthcare: I'd rather have a base level of schooling I can buy my way to "better quality" than leave anyone who can't afford private school out on the street with no education. Not everything needs a profit motive. Some things, the ones that lay a foundation for a free and fair society, such as police, fire, roads, railways, water, education and health, should be provided. This allows individuals to rise to the level of their abilities and merits without relying on the largesse of their family. This is the meritocratic American dream, in a lot of ways. There are plenty -- and I do mean plenty of ways to make money out there, it's not like socializing this eliminates capitalism. If anything, it bolsters it by allowing more people to pursue entrepreneurship. > Its true that businesses would love not to manage training people about healthcare, but then the government will have to do it and that won't come cheap. It is cheaper in every other country, and there's no reason it wouldn't be cheaper here. Analysis in a Koch-backed study showed it would be +/- 10% (either 10% cheaper or 10% more expensive depending on ability to control costs while covering 12% more people) -- so less per capita no matter what. [1] > Whatever claims are not paid, its money leftover for spending in whatever initiative the government wants. That's not how governments work, that's how private companies work. Private companies take left over money and distribute it to their shareholders. Whenever a private insurer denies a claim someone makes money. Governments distribute it back to the people. Their goal is not to make money, to have money left over, it's to provide service. If they can do it for less, they'll lower their budget. Not that it matters, single payer setting prices works just fine in Canada. You know that price transparency everyone in America is demanding? Here's Ontario's entire list of prices: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/physserv/sob_master20181115.pdf http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/physser... PET scan? That's $237.50 (vs. $5000 in the US). > And if it doesn't, whats the way out? Voting? > Maybe thats your point, but I don't want in on that. I dont want the government deciding for me. By voting you decide. That's government. It's an extension of the people's will. You are in fact deciding. I'm sorry you feel like that doesn't work here, and that in fact you'd rather a faceless, un-accountable corporation with an interest in making a profit decide than a transparent, public good service you can control the leadership of. The government "decides" for you in so many other ways, it's ridiculous to draw the line here but even if you were to, offering a public plan strictly increases your options. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/upshot/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-cost-estimates.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/upshot/medica...