2 ms·

> Some people want to fix this with a single payer system, not realizing that doing so would only make things worse. Either medical costs will go up for the gov

> Some people want to fix this with a single payer system, not realizing that doing so would only make things worse. Either medical costs will go up for the government, or hospitals will go broke. I don't buy this. USA has huge per-person medical costs beyond any other country. There is absolutely room for efficiency by society/government that private enterprise isn't delivering. Look at some of these comparisons: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-...

ars 11y ago
Comparing the US with other countries is useless. America subsidizes medical care for the entire world. (Specifically research, by paying higher prices for new treatments.) There might be some efficiency to achieve in the US by single payer, maybe, but cost for the government will still go up. The only way they could do it is by raising taxes. People would save some money by not having to pay insurance (i.e. employers could increases wages by the amount send to insurance). Some people will win, some will lose. But it's never going to happen, raising taxes will never happy, increasing spending will never happen, and Americans prefer to handle that kind of thing themself. Also, reducing medical expenses means firing people, which is another no-no.
- beagle3 11y ago
  > Comparing the US with other countries is useless. America subsidizes medical care for the entire world. (Specifically research, by paying higher prices for new treatments.) I've heard this claim several times, but have never seen any of the data to support it. Specifically, a. That the treatments that are thus found are on average effective. Many FDA approved treatments are shown, usually in retrospect (as opposed to the loaded pre-approval trials), to be only marginally better than existing treatments. b. That the cost for medical research is prohibitive. The cost breakdown in the US for pharma marketing is about twice that of pharma research, whereas in most single payer countries it is much lower than that of research. In a single payer setting, you could probably cut medical care industries' income by 2 without harming research funds. c. That the research is in fact subsidized by the cost of treatments. Many new treatments have their origin in publicly funded research. It is pharma that pays the $400M/new drug to get it to market (and they like it that way - almost insurmountable barrier to entry to newcomers), which IS of course paid for by the expensive treatments - but most people wouldn't call this part research. Furthermore, the US has an entire and very lucrative section of the economy (medical billing on one hand, health insurance on the other) which is essentially nonexistent in single payer countries; This has nothing to do with new treatments, and is just a black hole providing no benefit to society compared to single payer systems. > But it's never going to happen, raising taxes will never happy, increasing spending will never happen, and Americans prefer to handle that kind of thing themself. It happens all the time. There is a part of every W-2 employyee's salary, affectionately known as "payroll tax, employer part", which is a tax paid directly by the employer, and which is - if I am not mistaken - prohibited from being disclosed on the pay stub by law. Most americans are completely unaware that thay are paying this tax, and -- make no mistake, it is the employee paying this tax, not the employer. > Also, reducing medical expenses means firing people, which is another no-no. Yeah, sure. <s>And that's why no industry ever fires anyone</s>. Recent drug decriminalization and legalization will eventually cause firing DEA agents, corrections officers and even police officers. And in increasing part of the population - the majority in a few states already - are all for it.

ars 11y ago

Comparing the US with other countries is useless. America subsidizes medical care for the entire world. (Specifically research, by paying higher prices for new treatments.) There might be some efficiency to achieve in the US by single payer, maybe, but cost for the government will still go up. The only way they could do it is by raising taxes. People would save some money by not having to pay insurance (i.e. employers could increases wages by the amount send to insurance). Some people will win, some will lose. But it's never going to happen, raising taxes will never happy, increasing spending will never happen, and Americans prefer to handle that kind of thing themself. Also, reducing medical expenses means firing people, which is another no-no.

beagle3 11y ago
> Comparing the US with other countries is useless. America subsidizes medical care for the entire world. (Specifically research, by paying higher prices for new treatments.) I've heard this claim several times, but have never seen any of the data to support it. Specifically, a. That the treatments that are thus found are on average effective. Many FDA approved treatments are shown, usually in retrospect (as opposed to the loaded pre-approval trials), to be only marginally better than existing treatments. b. That the cost for medical research is prohibitive. The cost breakdown in the US for pharma marketing is about twice that of pharma research, whereas in most single payer countries it is much lower than that of research. In a single payer setting, you could probably cut medical care industries' income by 2 without harming research funds. c. That the research is in fact subsidized by the cost of treatments. Many new treatments have their origin in publicly funded research. It is pharma that pays the $400M/new drug to get it to market (and they like it that way - almost insurmountable barrier to entry to newcomers), which IS of course paid for by the expensive treatments - but most people wouldn't call this part research. Furthermore, the US has an entire and very lucrative section of the economy (medical billing on one hand, health insurance on the other) which is essentially nonexistent in single payer countries; This has nothing to do with new treatments, and is just a black hole providing no benefit to society compared to single payer systems. > But it's never going to happen, raising taxes will never happy, increasing spending will never happen, and Americans prefer to handle that kind of thing themself. It happens all the time. There is a part of every W-2 employyee's salary, affectionately known as "payroll tax, employer part", which is a tax paid directly by the employer, and which is - if I am not mistaken - prohibited from being disclosed on the pay stub by law. Most americans are completely unaware that thay are paying this tax, and -- make no mistake, it is the employee paying this tax, not the employer. > Also, reducing medical expenses means firing people, which is another no-no. Yeah, sure. <s>And that's why no industry ever fires anyone</s>. Recent drug decriminalization and legalization will eventually cause firing DEA agents, corrections officers and even police officers. And in increasing part of the population - the majority in a few states already - are all for it.