5 ms·

I think it's been an issue, but not that big of an issue (in voter's minds) until recently. Many of the voting blocks are already covered. Low income people h

I think it's been an issue, but not that big of an issue (in voter's minds) until recently. Many of the voting blocks are already covered. Low income people have medicaid, seniors have medicare. Many people working a full time job have employer sponsored health plans. Health insurance costs are rising. It's harder to find a cheap plan. Pre-existing conditions really screw you as far as decent coverage. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point. The US is almost broke, we might not have a choice. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3035 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3035

aaronblohowiak 16y ago
Military spending.
jbooth 16y ago
Yeah, and it's brilliant, because the gov't is on the hook for poor people and old people, aka unprofitable insurance subjects, while the private industry scoops up profits on the rest. And before some conservative comes in telling me that insurance profits aren't that high as a % of revenue, % profits on a pass-thru payment system are not the same thing as % profits on actually building something. I saw a statistic (can't place it now and don't feel like googling, so grain of salt) that we actually have comparable government spending per capita on healthcare to some western european countries, and that's just for medicare/medicaid, without even covering everyone. No generic drugs + byzantine public/private payment systems + highest-risk populations = lots of money.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  % profits on a pass-thru payment system are not the same thing as % profits on actually building something. Could you explain this claim?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    In one sentence, IMO of course, passing something through should be much cheaper than actually building something or adding value unless you're bilking people. In another sentence, insurance companies don't administer care, they just move money around. Compare to the overhead as a % of revenue for the social security administration, for example. They're a simpler passthru so it's not a completely fair comparison but insurance is closer to SS than it is to manufacturing.
    - barry-cotter 16y ago
      passing something through should be much cheaper than actually building something or adding value unless you're bilking people. The amount someone gets paid for doing something depends on how much value they capture, not how much they add. In most cases where all parties contract freely, you can't capture more than you add, but anyway _Value added and paid are often wildly out of whack_ "Bilked" is a moral judgement. If you're saying you think insurance is unjustly fair then since that's a fact about you not about insurance, sure it can be true. But it's like "profiteering", a moral/political statement, with no economic content.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Adam Smith would differ with you, in the ideal case. Value capture and rent seeking aren't how capitalism are supposed to work. Heck, if that was the best capitalism could do, I'd be inclined to try communism.

aaronblohowiak 16y ago

Military spending.

jbooth 16y ago

Yeah, and it's brilliant, because the gov't is on the hook for poor people and old people, aka unprofitable insurance subjects, while the private industry scoops up profits on the rest. And before some conservative comes in telling me that insurance profits aren't that high as a % of revenue, % profits on a pass-thru payment system are not the same thing as % profits on actually building something. I saw a statistic (can't place it now and don't feel like googling, so grain of salt) that we actually have comparable government spending per capita on healthcare to some western european countries, and that's just for medicare/medicaid, without even covering everyone. No generic drugs + byzantine public/private payment systems + highest-risk populations = lots of money.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
% profits on a pass-thru payment system are not the same thing as % profits on actually building something. Could you explain this claim?
- jbooth 16y ago
  In one sentence, IMO of course, passing something through should be much cheaper than actually building something or adding value unless you're bilking people. In another sentence, insurance companies don't administer care, they just move money around. Compare to the overhead as a % of revenue for the social security administration, for example. They're a simpler passthru so it's not a completely fair comparison but insurance is closer to SS than it is to manufacturing.
  - barry-cotter 16y ago
    passing something through should be much cheaper than actually building something or adding value unless you're bilking people. The amount someone gets paid for doing something depends on how much value they capture, not how much they add. In most cases where all parties contract freely, you can't capture more than you add, but anyway _Value added and paid are often wildly out of whack_ "Bilked" is a moral judgement. If you're saying you think insurance is unjustly fair then since that's a fact about you not about insurance, sure it can be true. But it's like "profiteering", a moral/political statement, with no economic content.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Adam Smith would differ with you, in the ideal case. Value capture and rent seeking aren't how capitalism are supposed to work. Heck, if that was the best capitalism could do, I'd be inclined to try communism.