The U.S. can slash health-care costs 75%

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 November 2019 11:14
 
 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9712
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
10 November 2019 11:26
 

Not gonna happen.  There’s too much political inertia against “socialized medicine.”  And the insurance companies will put everything they have in a campaign to stop it because their business model depends on the current inefficiencies.  Americans like their “your money or your life” medicine, and detest anything pushed by liberals.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 November 2019 11:30
 
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:26 AM

Not gonna happen.  There’s too much political inertia against “socialized medicine.”  And the insurance companies will put everything they have in a campaign to stop it because their business model depends on the current inefficiencies.  Americans like their “your money or your life” medicine, and detest anything pushed by liberals.

But that isn’t “socialized medicine.”, it is “capitalized medicine”, that creates competition and commoditization.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9712
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
10 November 2019 19:00
 
GAD - 10 November 2019 11:30 AM
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:26 AM

Not gonna happen.  There’s too much political inertia against “socialized medicine.”  And the insurance companies will put everything they have in a campaign to stop it because their business model depends on the current inefficiencies.  Americans like their “your money or your life” medicine, and detest anything pushed by liberals.

But that isn’t “socialized medicine.”, it is “capitalized medicine”, that creates competition and commoditization.

Not according to the people who make money on the current system.  Any threat will be labeled “socialized” because the word gets so much traction.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 November 2019 19:17
 
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 07:00 PM
GAD - 10 November 2019 11:30 AM
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:26 AM

Not gonna happen.  There’s too much political inertia against “socialized medicine.”  And the insurance companies will put everything they have in a campaign to stop it because their business model depends on the current inefficiencies.  Americans like their “your money or your life” medicine, and detest anything pushed by liberals.

But that isn’t “socialized medicine.”, it is “capitalized medicine”, that creates competition and commoditization.

Not according to the people who make money on the current system.  Any threat will be labeled “socialized” because the word gets so much traction.

Maybe, but we don’t have to vote for those people.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6828
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
11 November 2019 13:52
 

“Price tags” seem like a great idea to me. Actually, I thought a law had already been recently passed that will require them.

Not so sure about “deductible security,” which seems like a giveaway to the insurance industry. Wouldn’t we be better off with an alternative to for-profit insurance companies?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
11 November 2019 14:26
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 11 November 2019 01:52 PM

“Price tags” seem like a great idea to me. Actually, I thought a law had already been recently passed that will require them.

Not so sure about “deductible security,” which seems like a giveaway to the insurance industry. Wouldn’t we be better off with an alternative to for-profit insurance companies?

It’s an employer benefit to employees as I read it. HSA are tax free so more power to buy better care, but it says the employees get anything left over (I assume it’s taxed then) so the idea is motivation to stay healthy as cheaply (price tagging) as possible and have more money for Christmas.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6828
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
11 November 2019 18:09
 
GAD - 11 November 2019 02:26 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 11 November 2019 01:52 PM

“Price tags” seem like a great idea to me. Actually, I thought a law had already been recently passed that will require them.

Not so sure about “deductible security,” which seems like a giveaway to the insurance industry. Wouldn’t we be better off with an alternative to for-profit insurance companies?

It’s an employer benefit to employees as I read it. HSA are tax free so more power to buy better care, but it says the employees get anything left over (I assume it’s taxed then) so the idea is motivation to stay healthy as cheaply (price tagging) as possible and have more money for Christmas.

I like the idea that consumers would have a monetary incentive to stay healthy and shop around. That would be a big improvement over the status quo. But leaving the health insurance companies in the equation means we’re still paying for their expenses and profit. What value are they adding to the system as a whole?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not in favor of doing away with health insurance entirely. I think it should be an option for those who want it—provided they or their employers are willing to foot the bill. But I don’t think it should be mandated. Arguments about the inefficiency of government aside, it seems to me that a public option which still maintains an incentive to stay healthy and shop around would be the most cost effective of all.

How about a public option with a lifetime cap on benefits?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 November 2019 01:20
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 11 November 2019 06:09 PM
GAD - 11 November 2019 02:26 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 11 November 2019 01:52 PM

“Price tags” seem like a great idea to me. Actually, I thought a law had already been recently passed that will require them.

Not so sure about “deductible security,” which seems like a giveaway to the insurance industry. Wouldn’t we be better off with an alternative to for-profit insurance companies?

It’s an employer benefit to employees as I read it. HSA are tax free so more power to buy better care, but it says the employees get anything left over (I assume it’s taxed then) so the idea is motivation to stay healthy as cheaply (price tagging) as possible and have more money for Christmas.

I like the idea that consumers would have a monetary incentive to stay healthy and shop around. That would be a big improvement over the status quo. But leaving the health insurance companies in the equation means we’re still paying for their expenses and profit. What value are they adding to the system as a whole?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not in favor of doing away with health insurance entirely. I think it should be an option for those who want it—provided they or their employers are willing to foot the bill. But I don’t think it should be mandated. Arguments about the inefficiency of government aside, it seems to me that a public option which still maintains an incentive to stay healthy and shop around would be the most cost effective of all.

How about a public option with a lifetime cap on benefits?

Not opposed to a public option if the gov could make it provide better care at less costs.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7707
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 November 2019 19:59
 
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 07:00 PM
GAD - 10 November 2019 11:30 AM
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:26 AM

Not gonna happen.  There’s too much political inertia against “socialized medicine.”  And the insurance companies will put everything they have in a campaign to stop it because their business model depends on the current inefficiencies.  Americans like their “your money or your life” medicine, and detest anything pushed by liberals.

But that isn’t “socialized medicine.”, it is “capitalized medicine”, that creates competition and commoditization.

Not according to the people who make money on the current system.  Any threat will be labeled “socialized” because the word gets so much traction.

This sounds like the same logic as people who say “we’ll only get moderate shifts to combat climate change”. It strikes me that “business as usual” in DC isn’t sustainable, we have to start pushing for real solutions, and not settle for “DC-palatable” solutions.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9712
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
13 November 2019 00:31
 
icehorse - 12 November 2019 07:59 PM
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 07:00 PM
GAD - 10 November 2019 11:30 AM
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:26 AM

Not gonna happen.  There’s too much political inertia against “socialized medicine.”  And the insurance companies will put everything they have in a campaign to stop it because their business model depends on the current inefficiencies.  Americans like their “your money or your life” medicine, and detest anything pushed by liberals.

But that isn’t “socialized medicine.”, it is “capitalized medicine”, that creates competition and commoditization.

Not according to the people who make money on the current system.  Any threat will be labeled “socialized” because the word gets so much traction.

This sounds like the same logic as people who say “we’ll only get moderate shifts to combat climate change”. It strikes me that “business as usual” in DC isn’t sustainable, we have to start pushing for real solutions, and not settle for “DC-palatable” solutions.

Americans are more interested in hurting people they do not like rather than helping themselves.  If they were to give themselves public medicine then they would have to give it to the homeless, the Blacks, the Mexicans, the Chinese, and anyone else who does not pass their muster. 

Also, Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists who think receiving government assistance is shameful which only the lowest of the low in society use and abuse.  For example, requiring a drug test to get food stamps.  Derogatory terms like “welfare queen.”  And spreading the belief that the scum of the Earth will abuse the system to collapse.  The belief that their taxes will go only to the scum and not to the worthy tax payer, who should not need the assistance anyway because the worthy tax payer has a job and can pay his bills.

I heard this toxic nonsense while visiting South Africa in 1992 just before the last all-white vote.  I got sick with salmonella and went to a public hospital, which was run by, and mostly served, Blacks.  In discussions with nurses and patients, the common comment was,”I don’t care if I don’t have the vote as long as the (insert hated Black rival tribe) doesn’t have the vote, too.”  They so distrusted and despised an out group that they were willing to deny benefits to themselves as long as it meant the other group did not also receive the benefit.  And the whites exploited that hatred to their benefit, and so will those who make money on America’s current medical system.

Give Dr. Seuss’s “The Sneeches” another read.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 November 2019 05:52
 

Changing demographics will make radical options more palatable. The Americans you describe will be in the minority in the future.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
13 November 2019 07:42
 
EN - 13 November 2019 05:52 AM

Changing demographics will make radical options more palatable. The Americans you describe will be in the minority in the future.

Actually the Americans he describes are already the minority. And South Africa is bad example. But like everything else on this site now everything is judged by skin color, gender and sexuality as the most important criteria.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7707
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 November 2019 08:11
 

skip:

Americans are more interested in hurting people they do not like rather than helping themselves.

Some are, but I don’t think that demographic is REALLY who DC is pandering to. I think DC is in the pockets of big business, e.g. the middlemen in the healthcare industry.