5 ms·

In the US, I think one problem is have too much mixing of public and private. We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of conseq

In the US, I think one problem is have too much mixing of public and private. We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private sector who manages to buy enough influence. Healthcare was far from a free market already before ObamaCare. But if we're going to regulate it as heavily as we do, I think we need to just step up and socialize it entirely.

maxhedrome 7y ago
Nah, we just need to regulate prices, and disband insurance entirely. Trump forced all hospitals to be transparent about their prices, there’s no reason on this planet that the shit they’re peddling should cost the amount it does, and if the overhead is on the hospital then we need to regulate further up the ladder. The pharmaceutical companies and suppliers who are basically extorting everyone. Over regulation is a bad thing, but some regulation, especially with an industry as corrupt as American healthcare is good.
bogomipz 7y ago
>"We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private sector who manages to buy enough influence." What would be an example of giving the public sector much decision making power "relatively free from consequence?" Would this be the FCC in this context? I ask because I'm genuinely interested in the point your making. Is there a relationship between this and and opportunistic private sector? Would this be the cell carriers in this context?
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  I had actually entirely forgotten I was still on the FCC thread after reading the comment I replied to, but sure, the FCC is also a good example of this. Take net neutrality for instance. That whole debate was centered on what the FCC would do - very little talk about legislative action. It is de-facto up to one agency that answers to an executive with all-time-low levels of public confidence, that also has an abnormally strong reputation for being in bed with industry. The current chairman has joked about it and been investigated for corruption, the prior chairman was formerly a major lobbyist for telco. There's other examples, like the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto's board (I'm like 90% sure I'm correctly remembering the agency and the company - I'd double-check myself but I need to get back to a work issue and wanted to answer you soon-ish).
Wheaties466 7y ago
Unfortunately completely socializing the healthcare system would tank the economy thats why no serious person in washington is pro universal healthcare.
- ranie93 7y ago
  "a new study [0] from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst finds that single-payer health care will save the US $5.1 trillion over a decade while drastically cutting working-class Americans’ health spending." [1] "Blahous’s paper[2], titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending." [3] [0] https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-an... [1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-pe... [2] https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare... [3] https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-he...
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    Studies like these are worse than worthless. Just look at any recent major public works project for an example of cost overruns. Here's how we could lower costs for Americans overnight: Allow importation of prescription medicines. Medicare for all will lead to doctors for none. It's really hard to get appointments from places that accept Medicare, it's just not worth the hassle for many doctors to deal with them.
    - ranie93 7y ago
      [citation needed]
jorblumesea 7y ago
I think the issue is political. Completely socializing it is still a hot potato for many, but healthcare as an industry needs to have stringent regulations in general. For example, strong rules around patient rights and patient privacy. But "socialized medicine" is a really dirty world in many parts of the country. So you have a highly regulated free market that is neither a free market nor does it have the advantages of complete regulation similar to Europe. It just ends up being a really inefficient system. It's a very US problem where we somehow managed to get the worst of both worlds.

maxhedrome 7y ago

Nah, we just need to regulate prices, and disband insurance entirely. Trump forced all hospitals to be transparent about their prices, there’s no reason on this planet that the shit they’re peddling should cost the amount it does, and if the overhead is on the hospital then we need to regulate further up the ladder. The pharmaceutical companies and suppliers who are basically extorting everyone. Over regulation is a bad thing, but some regulation, especially with an industry as corrupt as American healthcare is good.

bogomipz 7y ago

>"We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private sector who manages to buy enough influence." What would be an example of giving the public sector much decision making power "relatively free from consequence?" Would this be the FCC in this context? I ask because I'm genuinely interested in the point your making. Is there a relationship between this and and opportunistic private sector? Would this be the cell carriers in this context?

TallGuyShort 7y ago
I had actually entirely forgotten I was still on the FCC thread after reading the comment I replied to, but sure, the FCC is also a good example of this. Take net neutrality for instance. That whole debate was centered on what the FCC would do - very little talk about legislative action. It is de-facto up to one agency that answers to an executive with all-time-low levels of public confidence, that also has an abnormally strong reputation for being in bed with industry. The current chairman has joked about it and been investigated for corruption, the prior chairman was formerly a major lobbyist for telco. There's other examples, like the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto's board (I'm like 90% sure I'm correctly remembering the agency and the company - I'd double-check myself but I need to get back to a work issue and wanted to answer you soon-ish).

Wheaties466 7y ago

Unfortunately completely socializing the healthcare system would tank the economy thats why no serious person in washington is pro universal healthcare.

ranie93 7y ago
"a new study [0] from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst finds that single-payer health care will save the US $5.1 trillion over a decade while drastically cutting working-class Americans’ health spending." [1] "Blahous’s paper[2], titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending." [3] [0] https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-an... [1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-pe... [2] https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare... [3] https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-he...
- linuxftw 7y ago
  Studies like these are worse than worthless. Just look at any recent major public works project for an example of cost overruns. Here's how we could lower costs for Americans overnight: Allow importation of prescription medicines. Medicare for all will lead to doctors for none. It's really hard to get appointments from places that accept Medicare, it's just not worth the hassle for many doctors to deal with them.
  - ranie93 7y ago
    [citation needed]

jorblumesea 7y ago

I think the issue is political. Completely socializing it is still a hot potato for many, but healthcare as an industry needs to have stringent regulations in general. For example, strong rules around patient rights and patient privacy. But "socialized medicine" is a really dirty world in many parts of the country. So you have a highly regulated free market that is neither a free market nor does it have the advantages of complete regulation similar to Europe. It just ends up being a really inefficient system. It's a very US problem where we somehow managed to get the worst of both worlds.