4 ms·

> Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea. Not that I disagree, but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other

by m0zg 5y ago

> Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea. Not that I disagree, but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well. As someone who pays my own (and my family's) healthcare to the tune of $16K/yr for a really shitty plan, I'd also say that _who_ pays is probably not the primary concern here. If it cost one third what it does now (which is what it cost just 20 years ago, before government got more "involved"), a lot of people would be able to afford it out of pocket without entering de-facto indentured servitude. The primary concern, instead, should be how much this shit costs, as well as the fact that the costs are _still_ rising. And this concern can't be addressed until we force hospitals to publish prices, allow people to buy healthcare across state lines, and force US Big Pharma to treat the United States more favorably than they treat, say, Europe. Note that given the high levels of corruption in our government, and the high cost of doctors and nurses ($300 for a 10 minute consultation? GTFO, not even lawyers charge this much), I do not think that piping another few trillion per year through the government is going to improve matters in any way whatsoever.

Cederfjard 5y ago
Do you think healthcare providers could get away with such crazy prices if they had to negotiate with the government, instead of some insurance giant which in turn is bilking some corporation?
- moduspol 5y ago
  Perhaps a better question for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon? It's not like the US Government has some strong history of excellent price negotiation.
- m0zg 5y ago
  If anything, I'd say prices would get even crazier. Pfizer alone has almost a hundred lobbyists on payroll in DC.
  - jkestner 5y ago
    And they sure are fighting hard against having to negotiate with the government.
- refurb 5y ago
  Well United Healthcare has more insured members (40M) than Canada does total people (36M). Yet Canada has lower prices. Why do you think that is?
homo_ergaster 5y ago
“Government involvement” is not a boogeyman that makes everything bad. The UK government is very involved in the NHS. The NHS provides completely free care and gets better public health outcomes than the US with less spending. The source of the problems in US healthcare is parasitic insurance companies that add inefficiencies and siphon resources at every step, and provide no value to people compared to an NHS-type system
- refurb 5y ago
  Not better cancer outcomes!
freen 5y ago
The alternative to employer funded health insurance is not “no health insurance”. It is why every other developed country on the planet does. It is what Hayek advocates for in “the road to serfdom”. It is publicly funded universal healthcare.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Jcowell 5y ago
Lol no. Before government got involved a lot of people wouldn’t even have health care due to their pre-existing condition. The very nature of insurance makes it unprofitable in every means and no movement of a free market would change such. Linking Health Care to jobs is barbaric.
- m0zg 5y ago
  And now they don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, and even if they do have it, their deductable is often larger than the entire premium used to be. Whoop-te-do, wonderful government "progress". Just like the costs skyrocketed when the government got involved in student loans, to the point where some folks now have to pay their loans their entire lives. It used to be that you could fund college through summer jobs. Nowadays even selling a kidney would only cover half a year in some schools.
polygotdomain 5y ago
It's like you're so close, but you somehow can't connect all the dots. "Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea." > Not that I disagree If you agree that employers controlling health care is bad, what are the alternatives? Either universal coverage, or everyone has to foot the bill for their own health insurance plan. The former has a track record in every developed country in the world, the latter doesn't work at all. >but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well. No, universal coverage means that no one's healthcare gets cut. The fact that I even have to state this is strong indication that you're not arguing in good faith. >The primary concern, instead, should be how much this shit costs, as well as the fact that the costs are _still_ rising. I don't think that can be the concern without A) understanding why costs are rising AND B) why costs are rising faster here in the US than they are in other developed countries around the world who all have universal coverage for less than what we pay (big hint, it's the profit motive) >And this concern can't be addressed until we force hospitals to publish prices, allow people to buy healthcare across state lines, and force US Big Pharma to treat the United States more favorably than they treat, say, Europe. I wonder why Europe is treated more "favorably"? Maybe we just haven't showered "Big Pharma" with enough profits for them to like us? You know what might help with the whole "buying across state lines" thing, some sort of nationwide standard for insurance coverage so you wouldn't worry about the next state over having a completely different set of laws by which insurers have to abide by. And if there's one national standard for insurance coverage, what's the benefit of having one insurer over the other? And why don't you think hospitals publish their prices? Because it's not about what procedures or anything costs, it's about what insurers will pay. So between all the insurers, some won't pay this and others won't pay that, so we'll just charge astronomical prices and let the negotiators sort it all out. > and the high cost of doctors and nurses ($300 for a 10 minute consultation? GTFO, not even lawyers charge this much), Doctors charge that much because they have no idea what your insurance will pay. Doctors typically like to focus on practicing medicine and making their patients healthier, rather than navigate crazy insurance mazes. So doctors (like many in the chain) realized they could sit down and figure out exactly what they should charge, bill the insurance company, then fight to get paid OR make up some crazy price, know that the insurance companies are only going to pay anywhere from 40-75%, then just accept it and move on. Don't blame the doctors here when insurance is the issue. > Note that given the high levels of corruption in our government A lack of faith in our government is a completely separate issue from health care. Connected, but separate. We COULD have a government that actually was held accountable and did right by the population it's meant to serve. Instead we have corruption, lies, regulatory capture, and mismanagement. We COULD try actually making government better and correcting it's flaws (as our founders intended), but instead many use examples of it not working as evidence that we shouldn't try to improve it.

by m0zg 5y ago

Cederfjard 5y ago

Do you think healthcare providers could get away with such crazy prices if they had to negotiate with the government, instead of some insurance giant which in turn is bilking some corporation?

moduspol 5y ago
Perhaps a better question for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon? It's not like the US Government has some strong history of excellent price negotiation.
m0zg 5y ago
If anything, I'd say prices would get even crazier. Pfizer alone has almost a hundred lobbyists on payroll in DC.
- jkestner 5y ago
  And they sure are fighting hard against having to negotiate with the government.
refurb 5y ago
Well United Healthcare has more insured members (40M) than Canada does total people (36M). Yet Canada has lower prices. Why do you think that is?

homo_ergaster 5y ago

“Government involvement” is not a boogeyman that makes everything bad. The UK government is very involved in the NHS. The NHS provides completely free care and gets better public health outcomes than the US with less spending. The source of the problems in US healthcare is parasitic insurance companies that add inefficiencies and siphon resources at every step, and provide no value to people compared to an NHS-type system

refurb 5y ago
Not better cancer outcomes!

freen 5y ago

The alternative to employer funded health insurance is not “no health insurance”. It is why every other developed country on the planet does. It is what Hayek advocates for in “the road to serfdom”. It is publicly funded universal healthcare.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Jcowell 5y ago

Lol no. Before government got involved a lot of people wouldn’t even have health care due to their pre-existing condition. The very nature of insurance makes it unprofitable in every means and no movement of a free market would change such. Linking Health Care to jobs is barbaric.

m0zg 5y ago
And now they don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, and even if they do have it, their deductable is often larger than the entire premium used to be. Whoop-te-do, wonderful government "progress". Just like the costs skyrocketed when the government got involved in student loans, to the point where some folks now have to pay their loans their entire lives. It used to be that you could fund college through summer jobs. Nowadays even selling a kidney would only cover half a year in some schools.

polygotdomain 5y ago

It's like you're so close, but you somehow can't connect all the dots. "Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea." > Not that I disagree If you agree that employers controlling health care is bad, what are the alternatives? Either universal coverage, or everyone has to foot the bill for their own health insurance plan. The former has a track record in every developed country in the world, the latter doesn't work at all. >but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well. No, universal coverage means that no one's healthcare gets cut. The fact that I even have to state this is strong indication that you're not arguing in good faith. >The primary concern, instead, should be how much this shit costs, as well as the fact that the costs are _still_ rising. I don't think that can be the concern without A) understanding why costs are rising AND B) why costs are rising faster here in the US than they are in other developed countries around the world who all have universal coverage for less than what we pay (big hint, it's the profit motive) >And this concern can't be addressed until we force hospitals to publish prices, allow people to buy healthcare across state lines, and force US Big Pharma to treat the United States more favorably than they treat, say, Europe. I wonder why Europe is treated more "favorably"? Maybe we just haven't showered "Big Pharma" with enough profits for them to like us? You know what might help with the whole "buying across state lines" thing, some sort of nationwide standard for insurance coverage so you wouldn't worry about the next state over having a completely different set of laws by which insurers have to abide by. And if there's one national standard for insurance coverage, what's the benefit of having one insurer over the other? And why don't you think hospitals publish their prices? Because it's not about what procedures or anything costs, it's about what insurers will pay. So between all the insurers, some won't pay this and others won't pay that, so we'll just charge astronomical prices and let the negotiators sort it all out. > and the high cost of doctors and nurses ($300 for a 10 minute consultation? GTFO, not even lawyers charge this much), Doctors charge that much because they have no idea what your insurance will pay. Doctors typically like to focus on practicing medicine and making their patients healthier, rather than navigate crazy insurance mazes. So doctors (like many in the chain) realized they could sit down and figure out exactly what they should charge, bill the insurance company, then fight to get paid OR make up some crazy price, know that the insurance companies are only going to pay anywhere from 40-75%, then just accept it and move on. Don't blame the doctors here when insurance is the issue. > Note that given the high levels of corruption in our government A lack of faith in our government is a completely separate issue from health care. Connected, but separate. We COULD have a government that actually was held accountable and did right by the population it's meant to serve. Instead we have corruption, lies, regulatory capture, and mismanagement. We COULD try actually making government better and correcting it's flaws (as our founders intended), but instead many use examples of it not working as evidence that we shouldn't try to improve it.