4 ms·
Surely you cannot fail to have noticed how much Americans currently spend on health care, and how moving from private industry to state industry consistently in
by randallsquared 17y ago
Surely you cannot fail to have noticed how much Americans currently spend on health care, and how moving from private industry to state industry consistently increases the amount spent (at least in the US!)? Now, a case could be made that health care is an exception, largely because it's so heavily regulated already as to be effectively a poorly-run state industry with private profits. However, taking any other country's efficient or well-run government program and trying to build one like it in the US is probably doomed to failure. The US government has very bad incentives for "efficient" and "well-run".
- dreish 17y agoI don't think you get to just make assertions like that without any facts. Medicare, which is already a government-run health insurance plan, and one whose customers are so satisfied they are militantly protective of it, has lower administrative costs than private insurance companies: http://wallstreetpit.com/7500-does-medicare-actually-have-higher-administrative-costs-than-private-insurers http://wallstreetpit.com/7500-does-medicare-actually-have-hi...
- randallsquared 17y agoI don't have specific data on Medicare, but you aren't exactly arguing against what I said, I notice. One would expect the beneficiaries of a government program to be militantly protective of it, and the less efficient, the more so -- no one hires lobbyists to reduce money or services they're getting.
- dreish 17y agoI am if you read the link, which is actually a good survey of what turns out to be a somewhat complicated question, due to the differing populations served. I don't think it's fully settled, but I think the assertion "Medicare has lower administrative costs that private insurance" has a much better shot at surviving than the negative of that assertion. The government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks. I don't know where you get this notion that somehow the government would be an inefficient purveyor of health insurance. It simply isn't true.
- randallsquared 17y agoThe government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks. I think we have different ideas about what economic efficiency entails. I'm not sure that "efficiency" at wasting money is a good thing, nor is it usually what is meant in the context of providing services. (I have not yet had an opportunity to read your link, however, so perhaps this is answered in it).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- anamax 17y ago> I don't think it's fully settled, but I think the assertion "Medicare has lower administrative costs that private insurance" has a much better shot at surviving than the negative of that assertion. It doesn't matter whether that assertion is true. It's almost a dumb a question as wondering about whose check writing costs are lower. (I've never seen someone wonder about that wrt defense spending.) The closest relevant question is whether govt healthcare is more effective. The folks currently covered by US govt paid healthcare aren't being covered for less and aren't having better outcomes than the folks covered by the private system. (I'm ignoring horrorshows like the Indian Health Service. They'd almost be better off if we gave them blankets infected with diseases and cases of whiskey.) Then there's the "fairness" question. I know several folks who pay a lot of taxes who are "heavy" and/or old. On what basis are you planning to deny them govt funded healthcare? On the other end of the scale, your choice to subsidize an activity does not obligate the recipients of that subsidy to minimize your costs.
- dreish 17y agoYou're drifting far, far away from the issue that was raised at the beginning of this thread. tjic asserted, I believe as an article of ideological faith, not based on any facts or evidence, that the proposed medical insurance bills in Congress would raise overall employment costs in the U.S. That assertion is what I took issue with, because I hate to see people blindly voting up stuff they agree with without thinking about it. Nothing else. In any case, I don't think your "closest relevant question" is well-formed. For one thing, no one is proposing "govt [sic] healthcare". For another, though what you write is frustratingly vague, it looks like you're proposing to compare outcomes between those 65 and over who are covered by Medicare with those who are young and healthy and covered through their employers -- obviously the populations are going to have very different outcomes.
- electromagnetic 17y agoThe British government is a disaster at efficiency, the French system is outright appalling and has one of the best health care systems in the world. By this progression, if the US had universal health care you would pay a penny and live forever.
- MaysonL 17y agoTake a look at the VA health care system: it's best in class on almost every imaginable metric, including cost. Totally government run. It's time to realise that governmental organizations can be just as efficient or inefficient as private ones. Name me a government organization as badly managed as GM!