4 ms·
I still feel that something like Medicare for All should just be an issue for those that are all about free markets and entrepreneurship. Maybe there are milli
by atonse 1y ago
I still feel that something like Medicare for All should just be an issue for those that are all about free markets and entrepreneurship.
Maybe there are millions in America that only keep their jobs for the health benefits rather than starting a 1-2 person business.
It just seems so silly.
- cyanydeez 1y agoWell, there's two forces at work: 1. Capitalism never sleeps. 2. Current healthcare employs thousands of people who would be out of work in a medicare for all system. While #1 is a horrid excuse, #2 is what controls the real world.
- kingkawn 1y agothey’ll adjust
- slipperydippery 1y agoOur GDP would take a really bad hit if we stopped wasting 10+% of it overpaying for healthcare (a white-collar make-work jobs program—like, god, couldn't we just start up the CCC again? At least they built nice stuff that we're still enjoying... imagine what they could do with 10% or more of GDP!) I suspect this, plus other ways the US reports sheer waste as GDP to a much higher degree than most peer states, is the main reason folks report the US feeling a lot poorer than second-tier EU countries that on-paper have far lower GDP/capita, even with PPP adjustments. But the fake-healthcare-GDP is probably the single biggest culprit, being absolutely enormous.
- wqaatwt 1y ago> folks report the US feeling a lot poorer than second-tier EU countries How can they even tell that? Maybe people living in either place just have very different expectations.
- ProjectArcturis 1y agoThe powers that be don't care at all about thousands of insurance adjusters losing their jobs. But they care very deeply about vaporizing hundreds of billions in shareholder equity.
- cyanydeez 1y agoIts democracu and small business self interesrlt. You dont need a bogeyman to see how the system remains the same.
- philip1209 1y agoIt's also an equality issue. People stay in abusive relationships because of healthcare. Related: "My gift to USA" by Harald Eia (Norwegian comedian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PguJ-lm4uLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PguJ-lm4uLg Takeaway of that video: "Can you really be free if you have to depend on somebody else?"
- andy99 1y agoWhat is special about healthcare in this regard and where should be draw the line? This argument could be used to justify socializing all kinds of costs, almost anything up to UBI.
- chatmasta 1y agoUniversal healthcare is supported by something like 60 or 70% of Americans. Don’t be fooled by those trying to make it into a party issue. Agreed, it’s crazy. Making healthcare contingent on employment is barbaric but aligned with other practices (like W2 tax withholding) where the government effectively deputizes your employer to enforce the civic contract.
- onesociety2022 1y agoI would support universal healthcare if I think the government is actually capable of reigning in the avg healthcare costs of an American. I’d bet the $800/mo eyedrops this poor lady is relying on don’t cost that much in any other country (and I don’t mean poor countries - I mean in other rich countries like Japan, Singapore or Australia). So when she switches to Medicare as soon as she turns 65, how much are the US taxpayers paying for these eyedrops? It’s just wealth transfer from US taxpayers to the US medical industry complex. So I fear “Medicare for All” would simply mean we pay even more taxes than we already do now and the US government will keep spending insane amounts of money on healthcare as compared to every other developed nation in the world with no better outcomes.
- cornholio 1y agoI think there is credible research that US drug costs are primarily the result of a fragmented market and lack of collective bargaining. So a single buyer regime will by itself lower the prices since manufacturers will be forced to compete among themselves based on price and an objective metric of the therapeutic benefit - as opposed to marketing and the best sales network and "conference" benefits the prescribing physicians. For example, if the generic option reduces the burden of disease by 10 DALYs and costs essentially ~0$ it will be fully covered, any other patented option with a 15 DALY average benefit will be covered up to a financial ceiling given by the total funding available and the extra 5DALY benefit it brings. A patented option that does not fit that ceiling will require patients to pay from their pocket, therefore cratering sales, therefore strongly incentivizing the pharmaceutical company to lower the price to fit the ceiling. This is how other advanced countries lower spending on drugs without infringing on intellectual property - by forcing all manufacturers of all drugs for all diseases to compete on price, or risk selling basically nothing in that country until their patents expire. Since the marginal production cost of drugs is close to zero, it' always better to have some sales at some lower prices instead of no sales at a very profitable price.
- PrivateButts 1y agoI made this argument in a paper I wrote for a college economics class. I had first hand experience with it because I had recently done the math and figured that I would have to stop my flexible contracting job and seek more traditional employment as I was going to lose my parents insurance and the 'open market' option was unaffordable. Ended up being the reason that I dropped out of college.
- Kapura 1y agoIf people need a job to have healthcare, it gives employers a lot of power. and because superpacs have allowed people with the most money the most say in american elections, the capitalists can just keep wringing people out.
- jzackpete 1y agoIt's silly that believing more government intervention will solve the problem, given that a big reason healthcare became tied to employment in the first place was wage freezes by the government, from which employer sponsored health insurance was exempt. We're not going to solve it by constraining the supply of healthcare by regulating every aspect of it, and then subsidizing the demand.
- atonse 1y agoIt’s not constraining care. It’s a single payer system. Think of there being one insurance company. This isn’t theoretical. Medicare already has been supporting the most frequent users of the system for decades. It’s a proven system with low overheads. Yes there’s probably abuse but overall it has high satisfaction from its stakeholders.
- jzackpete 1y agoI'm talking about the regulatory capture of everything related to health care: medications, credentialing, insurance, etc. Any regulation imposed on the production of a good or provision of a service is a constraint on the supply. Reducing supply increases costs. I fail to see how the imposition of one insurance company (a monopoly) would improve that. When Medicare was created, medical care accounted for less than 7% of GDP. It's around 20% now[1]. If you extrapolate life expectancy from before Medicare to now, has that massive increase in spending changed the trajectory at all? You see the same phenomenon in higher education: we subsidize demand through government-backed loans, and costs and administrative overhead skyrockets. [1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...
- AstroBen 1y ago> Maybe there are millions in America that only keep their jobs for the health benefits rather than starting a 1-2 person business. I'm not 100% sure about upcoming changes, seems similar from what I can see, but ACA gives an option for this. No job = very low income = you'll qualify for hugely reduced premiums
- nobody9999 1y ago>I'm not 100% sure about upcoming changes, seems similar from what I can see, but ACA gives an option for this. No job = very low income = you'll qualify for hugely reduced premiums The premiums are not reduced, at least where I live. What happens is I can deduct those premiums from the taxes paid. But wait, if I have no/little income, I don't pay taxes. And so I get no subsidy. Is that what you're talking about? Woo hoo!
- AstroBen 1y agoMaybe it depends on state, but where I'm at the premiums are definitely reduced for low income people https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-pay-in-premiums-if-the-acas-enhanced-subsidies-expired/ https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-p...
- nobody9999 1y agoI'm sure it does. Where I live that's not the case. In fact, I've spent well over $100,000 on insurance premiums over the past 12 years -- just for me.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 1y ago"something like Medicare for All" If that's the case, then you've never looked into the complexity of Medicare. Medicaid for all, and concierge services for those who want to pay exalted prices for exalted services -- that may make sense.
- Arrowmaster 1y agoMedicare is only complicated because private insurance was allowed in. All those extras are killing it too from increased costs. Medicaid is state run. Some states let private insurance companies run it, some run it themselves. The argument for medicaid for all should also be to bring it all together like medicare.
- readthenotes1 1y agoMedicare got more complicated cuz it barely covers anything without the additional private insurances. If you want Medicare for all you're going to have barely covering anything for all, and still being mind-numbingly complex. Other countries have managed to do tear systems, the US kit as well if there were the will
- Arrowmaster 1y agoHey sorry for the late response. My mother is the medical billing and insurance specialist for a private religious organization. She moves all the nuns from their private insurance to Medicare as they become old enough to qualify. What I've constantly heard from her is that the standard benefits are enough to cover everything but the private addons advertise they can make it cheaper. But as soon as you sign up, Medicare stops covering parts that private addons do (because the private insurance is now getting money from Medicare). This forces a lock in where you can't really go back. Also from conferences she has attended, there are experts in the field predicting these private insurances are going to bleed Medicare dry from increased costs. What's happening is they keep adding these benefits that only some of their customers use (like silver sneakers membership?) then telling Medicare their operating costs have gone up and they need more money.