Crossroads
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2012
- Messages
- 408
- Reaction score
- 70
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
This is actually going to be a very short post but...
Isn't the risk in an insurance pool less when the insurance pool is larger? If, instead of all Americans being divided into different insurance companies, they were all pooled into one LARGE insurance pool, wouldn't that in and of itself lower the cost of insurance?
That's not true. Companies must compete for government contracts, which lowers cost.No, as there is no competition (monopoly).
SMUD.Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.
That's not true. Companies must compete for government contracts, which lowers cost.
In contrast, there's no competition in healthcare now. People aren't given enough information to make an informed choice even when they have more than one viable choice at any given location at which they have an immediate pressing need.
Ironically, single payer is a better market solution than our current system, because the current system is by and large merely localized monopoly power over perfectly inelastic demand.
SMUD.
This is actually going to be a very short post but...
Isn't the risk in an insurance pool less when the insurance pool is larger? If, instead of all Americans being divided into different insurance companies, they were all pooled into one LARGE insurance pool, wouldn't that in and of itself lower the cost of insurance?
That's not true. Companies must compete for government contracts, which lowers cost....
That's valid. I'd say it be addressed in forming the policy. I imagine regular evaluations would be standard.I'm confused. After the one company is successful in garnering THE government single payer contract how do the others stay in business (without subscribers) until the next open bid process begins. It is true that there are many NOW competing for these but once single payer is active why would the others be needed?
That's valid. I'd say it be addressed in forming the policy. I imagine regular evaluations would be standard.
Well... there's the rest of the Industrialized world.. and Here of course.Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.
Looks like it's cheaper Everywhere through public healthcare.If you get your Hip replaced in the United States, the orthopedic surgeon who performs the procedure will earn, on average, about $4,000 from your private insurance company, assuming you have one.
A comparably educated and trained surgeon doing the same operation on a privately insured patient will get about $2,200 in England, $2,000 in Australia and $1,340 in France, according to a new study published this month in the journal Health Affairs.
If you're covered by Medicare or Medicaid in this country, the difference in price is considerably less, suggesting that Government programs are Better price bargainers than private insurance companies. But your orthopedic surgeon still will get more from Medicare for a first-time, uncomplicated hip replacement — about $1,600 — than surgeons typically earn through publicly financed health programs in the United Kingdom ($1,200), Australia ($1,000) or France ($700), the study found.
The research, conducted by two professors of public health at Columbia University, clearly illustrates what should be obvious about the disproportionately large percentage of the U.S. economy — 16% — that goes to health care.
We spend more in the United States for doctors' services because U.S. doctors charge Higher prices than doctors in other countries.
The new study also looked at prices primary care physicians charge for office visits and found a similar pattern, but with narrower differences. Under private insurance, U.S. doctors charge an average of $133 for an office visit, versus $129 in England, $45 in Australia and $34 in France. Under Public health systems, physicians in England actually get more than their U.S. counterparts on average — $66 as opposed to $60 — while Australian doctors earn $34 and French physicians $32.
The researchers found no evidence to support other explanations for higher prices in this country. "Higher physician fees — rather than the higher costs of practicing, the volume of services provided, or medical school tuition expenses — are the main drivers of higher spending for physician services in the United States," concluded The Commonwealth Fund, which helped pay for the study.
[......]
That's valid. I'd say it be addressed in forming the policy. I imagine regular evaluations would be standard.
That's a good point, but contracts are not necessarily an all-or-nothing deal, either. With the right system, businesses that are on the right track can stay solvent without monopoly control. I imagine any functional single-payer system realistically involves a heterogenous field of contracts of varying size and spread.So you WOULD agree that there is potential for monopoly (as opposed to #4 above)...? I don't see how 'forming the policy' or 'regular evaluations' would keep those 'not under contract' insurance businesses solvent without subscribers. Can you expound on this?
Hmm, ok. Would you say that monopoly is inevitable in single payer? If so, is it a problem and if so, how is it best dealt with?To prove how wrong you are take a look at how defense contractors make most of their money. Not on the original equipment they sell but the spare parts to get the tanks and planes going. Same is true here, companies would lowball to get the contract then raise prices as the years go on.
Single payer may be the best solution, but not for the reason mentioned here.
No, as there is no competition (monopoly).
Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.
Incorrect. It may seem cheaper in a direct sense because the government is doing it for "free", but it's still funded by tax payer money and being the government is largely less efficient and less cost oriented than a free market enterprise.
Try again.
And we don't need single payer. There's no reason we can't just have an opt-out option like Germany.
Well... there's the rest of the Industrialized world.. and Here of course.
Medicare reimbursement (Universal Healthcare for seniors) is the Near equalizer and clearly something that would Lower our relative costs.
U.S. Doctors' Pay Much Higher Than Their European Counterparts
U.S. Doctors' Pay Much Higher Than Their European Counterparts by Newspaper Contributors on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
Looks like it's cheaper Everywhere through public healthcare.
Thought it's Not the only factor, Doctor pay is one Big reasons we pay so much for Healthcare. There's not really any competition in Medicine. You Need X, you can't/don't want to spend time shopping around, and even if you do, it costs you.
It's less conducive to private competition than say, Car insurance.
Post Office,
Security,
Housing,
healthcare, (the results are my friend, we see single payer countries and market based healthcare countries)
Roads and transportation,
Energy
Insurance
I can go on if you'd like.
THe government is less cost oriented yes ... but it is also more RESULTS orientated and less PROFIT orientated.
Germany has a public not for profit healthcare system.
It's EMPIRICALLY not true that healthcare costs more in single payer, it costs A LOT LESS. EMPIRICALLY .... (you can do market theory all you want, the results are in, single payer is more efficient, better care, and cheaper).
THe government is less cost oriented yes ... but it is also more RESULTS orientated and less PROFIT orientated.
Germany has a public not for profit healthcare system.
...Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung...
The main health insurance issue in Germany is obviously that no one can say the name of their system without having to take two or three breaths.
Yes, but your challenge was to show Government has done Anything cheaper].Most successful countries are multipayer, not single payer. The thread suggested single payer, which I believe is a terrible option because it forces people to do something they don't want to do, and makes it so that there is no competition. Countries like Germany who have multipayer and an opt-out option for public healthcare have it down.
.....
Yes, but your challenge was to show Government has done Anything cheaper].
I met that challenge quite handily. (Medicare)
I also pointed out Healthcare isn't as conducive as other industries/services to competition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?