4 ms·

> The plans simply reflect the cost of healthcare. Anyone who works in healthcare and looks at billing can tell you this is not actually the case, prices are n

> The plans simply reflect the cost of healthcare. Anyone who works in healthcare and looks at billing can tell you this is not actually the case, prices are not based on any reasonable metric and are rarely actually paid by insurers anyway. >The companies that sell the healthcare have profit margins in the sub 5% range. Point of contention here, these companies aren't selling healthcare, they're reselling it. Which is a service which should ideally not have any profit margins, and would be best suited for a large, collective entity that everyone paid into according to their financial ability, as opposed to smaller social-class exclusive pools.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
What you are talking about is taxpayer funded healthcare, with the large collective entity being the government. Seeing as how that is not politically possibly, middlemen with sub 5% profit margins was the compromise. Obviously not the best situation, but still better than before.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  5% profit isn't the whole story here - If you can't increase profit, increase revenue. These middlemen have a lot of power and an incentive to use it in making the system less efficient.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    All businesses would like to increase profit and revenue, but they cannot just will it. There are at least 7 major publicly traded competing managed care organizations (MCOs, aka health insurance comapanies) plus Kaiser Permanente among many others. Is there any evidence that these companies are concluding to increase revenue by making the system less efficient? Low profit margins plus multitude of competitors generally means there is not much juice left to squeeze.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  Correct, that was what I was alluding to. There's lots of good reasons to move to such a system, and no good reasons to keep our current system. >Seeing as how that is not politically possibly Basically every other liberal democracy has taxpayer funded healthcare, and even many US states have successful programs. It's extraordinarily silly to call that impossible, or to call what we have now a "compromise" rather than a clear case of corporate welfare being put before the welfare of the citizens.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    There literally was a compromise in 2009 during the passage of ACA that nixed the “public option” (taxpayer funded) healthcare in order to win the votes of necessary Senators to pass the bill. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/senate-democrats-drop-public-option-woo-lieberman-and-liberals-howl https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-art... Seeing as how Republicans have zero interest in taxpayer funded healthcare, and they have held enough Senate seats to stymie any Democrat led effort for the past 20 years and probably next 20, I do not see why it is “silly” to call it politically impossible.
    - nebula8804 5y ago
      Seems like Texas will go blue as the population changes. They almost elected one in 2018. They may also flip North Carolina and Pennsylvania to permanent blue as well.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

What you are talking about is taxpayer funded healthcare, with the large collective entity being the government. Seeing as how that is not politically possibly, middlemen with sub 5% profit margins was the compromise. Obviously not the best situation, but still better than before.

sudosysgen 5y ago
5% profit isn't the whole story here - If you can't increase profit, increase revenue. These middlemen have a lot of power and an incentive to use it in making the system less efficient.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  All businesses would like to increase profit and revenue, but they cannot just will it. There are at least 7 major publicly traded competing managed care organizations (MCOs, aka health insurance comapanies) plus Kaiser Permanente among many others. Is there any evidence that these companies are concluding to increase revenue by making the system less efficient? Low profit margins plus multitude of competitors generally means there is not much juice left to squeeze.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
Correct, that was what I was alluding to. There's lots of good reasons to move to such a system, and no good reasons to keep our current system. >Seeing as how that is not politically possibly Basically every other liberal democracy has taxpayer funded healthcare, and even many US states have successful programs. It's extraordinarily silly to call that impossible, or to call what we have now a "compromise" rather than a clear case of corporate welfare being put before the welfare of the citizens.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  There literally was a compromise in 2009 during the passage of ACA that nixed the “public option” (taxpayer funded) healthcare in order to win the votes of necessary Senators to pass the bill. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/senate-democrats-drop-public-option-woo-lieberman-and-liberals-howl https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-art... Seeing as how Republicans have zero interest in taxpayer funded healthcare, and they have held enough Senate seats to stymie any Democrat led effort for the past 20 years and probably next 20, I do not see why it is “silly” to call it politically impossible.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    Seems like Texas will go blue as the population changes. They almost elected one in 2018. They may also flip North Carolina and Pennsylvania to permanent blue as well.