5 ms·

The U.S. insurance system is not semi-socialized on that part, it is a result of collusion between hospital administration and insurance companies to maximize p

by snlacks 12y ago

The U.S. insurance system is not semi-socialized on that part, it is a result of collusion between hospital administration and insurance companies to maximize profits instead of health of the nation. Corporatism keeps laws on the books that reduce competition and take the decisions out of the hands of patients and doctors and puts it into bureaucrats. Medicaid and Obamacare are the socialization aspects, which try to work within the Corporatist solution... we should have and should just tear the whole system apart. Too many good minds work in billing and adminstrative research and development, not in medical development. Disclaimer: I make medical billing and administrative software. I have a job because of a broken system... I'd sacrifice my comfort for a better system.

jasonlotito 12y ago
> we should have and should just tear the whole system apart. And replace it with what? I left Canada because of the abuse of their healthcare system, so please, share with me a model that isn't like Canada's that you'd want to move to?
yummyfajitas 12y ago
The US insurance system is heavily tuned to make some people pay for others. Employer sponsored insurance, together with accompanying regulations about individual costs, is tuned to make sure the smoker and the healthy person pay the same price. See also community rating in the private market. On top of that, the US government pays more for it's own socialized medical programs than most other nations do. And this isn't even getting into all the ways regulations micromanage doctors and other parts of the system. Not to mention micromanage financial services - India actually has innovation in that space. Any theories which claim that for-profit systems are horrible need to be tested against the Indian system. It's mostly for-profit, free market, etc - all the incorrect claims people make about the US are pretty much true there.
- danielweber 12y ago
  There's this story about health care that goes like this: 1. There are two kinds of health care systems in the world. 2. The first kind is private-run, profit-driven and super-expensive, the second kind is government-run and much cheaper. 3. America has the first kind. Every other country has the second kind. You can see that story being repeated all over this page.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    You forgot to mention that that story is a fiction, albeit a popular one.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      That's true
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  Employer sponsored insurance, together with accompanying regulations about individual costs, is tuned to make sure the smoker and the healthy person pay the same price. That is kind of what insurance is for though - to level out the cost for everyone. It's a common misconception that smokers cost society. The truth is, smokers die earlier and cost tax payers less in insurance benefits and health care than non-smokers. [1] We should be encouraging people to smoke if we want to save money. (I'm joking!) [1] http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    That is kind of what insurance is for though - to level out the cost for everyone. No, the point of insurance is to reduce the variance of an individual's future cost. Due to the law of large numbers, averaging across independent identically distributed people is equivalent to averaging over the future, but that's a side effect. Averaging over independent non-identically distributed people is NOT part of insurance at all - that's what I'm describing as "the socialist part". An example illustrating the difference - say you have 10 dice, and if a die rolls a 6 it costs $1,000. You also have 10 coins, and if the coin comes up heads, it costs $1,000. Insurance is when you charge the dice $166 and the coins $500. Socialism is when you charge everyone $333 - that's redistribution from the dice to the coins. The link about smoking costs is interesting, however that applies at the level of government paying for lifetime costs. Annual costs are higher. So insurance for this year should cost the smoker more than the healthy person.
seanflyon 12y ago
I agree with everything but the "not semi-socialized" statement. It is half socialized, half corporatism with the worst of both worlds. You even refer to the socialized aspects which it wouldn't have were it not semi-socialized.

by snlacks 12y ago

jasonlotito 12y ago

> we should have and should just tear the whole system apart. And replace it with what? I left Canada because of the abuse of their healthcare system, so please, share with me a model that isn't like Canada's that you'd want to move to?

yummyfajitas 12y ago

The US insurance system is heavily tuned to make some people pay for others. Employer sponsored insurance, together with accompanying regulations about individual costs, is tuned to make sure the smoker and the healthy person pay the same price. See also community rating in the private market. On top of that, the US government pays more for it's own socialized medical programs than most other nations do. And this isn't even getting into all the ways regulations micromanage doctors and other parts of the system. Not to mention micromanage financial services - India actually has innovation in that space. Any theories which claim that for-profit systems are horrible need to be tested against the Indian system. It's mostly for-profit, free market, etc - all the incorrect claims people make about the US are pretty much true there.

danielweber 12y ago
There's this story about health care that goes like this: 1. There are two kinds of health care systems in the world. 2. The first kind is private-run, profit-driven and super-expensive, the second kind is government-run and much cheaper. 3. America has the first kind. Every other country has the second kind. You can see that story being repeated all over this page.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  You forgot to mention that that story is a fiction, albeit a popular one.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    That's true
chrisbennet 12y ago
Employer sponsored insurance, together with accompanying regulations about individual costs, is tuned to make sure the smoker and the healthy person pay the same price. That is kind of what insurance is for though - to level out the cost for everyone. It's a common misconception that smokers cost society. The truth is, smokers die earlier and cost tax payers less in insurance benefits and health care than non-smokers. [1] We should be encouraging people to smoke if we want to save money. (I'm joking!) [1] http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  That is kind of what insurance is for though - to level out the cost for everyone. No, the point of insurance is to reduce the variance of an individual's future cost. Due to the law of large numbers, averaging across independent identically distributed people is equivalent to averaging over the future, but that's a side effect. Averaging over independent non-identically distributed people is NOT part of insurance at all - that's what I'm describing as "the socialist part". An example illustrating the difference - say you have 10 dice, and if a die rolls a 6 it costs $1,000. You also have 10 coins, and if the coin comes up heads, it costs $1,000. Insurance is when you charge the dice $166 and the coins $500. Socialism is when you charge everyone $333 - that's redistribution from the dice to the coins. The link about smoking costs is interesting, however that applies at the level of government paying for lifetime costs. Annual costs are higher. So insurance for this year should cost the smoker more than the healthy person.

seanflyon 12y ago

I agree with everything but the "not semi-socialized" statement. It is half socialized, half corporatism with the worst of both worlds. You even refer to the socialized aspects which it wouldn't have were it not semi-socialized.