One Question on Healthcare

[GenSeneca]

You started it

You have not made one attempt, in your several posts, to answer my question. Again I would like to ask that you either participate in the discussion as if you're an adult capable of such discourse, or just stop posting in my thread.

I would prefer to have a civilized discussion on the topic but I will settle for an absence of childish prattle.

 

[rationalist]

Look, you think healthcare is a commdodity that should be sold on the free market and I am ridiculing that hideous, nasty view

 

[rationalist]

I hope I didn't get your viewpoint wrong

 

[Pidgey]

Gawd... the Fed just upped the primary credit rate for the discount window from 1/2 to 3/4 percent, a day this side of the OpEx (Options Expiry). Now... THAT'S gonna' put some serious hurt on some folks...

With respect to the current debate in this particular thread... folks... most of y'all have abso-frigging-lutely NO Earthly idea how complex all this financial crap really is and how it relates to your lives. None. Zippo. Zilch. Na-da.

 

[GenSeneca]

Look, you think healthcare is a commdodity that should be sold on the free market and I am ridiculing that hideous, nasty view

Attacking my position is not a defense of your position.

This thread was not created to explain and defend my position on health care, it was created because I want to know why people like you think single payer, and/or a public option, would reduce the cost of providing care.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Government prevents insurance providers from competing across state lines. I've been the one saying they should eliminate such restrictions to open up true competitive forces in the market.


And what of the people who will game such a system and refuse to buy HC insurance until they have a catastrophic problem?


Please point out where I said the, "system has been shut down", or you can just stop spouting such lies and I won't have to call you out on them.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=131629&postcount=6

A budget deficit of 1.23 billion and outstanding debts of more than 8 billion dollars have resulted in Hawaii slashing Health Care services

The source for my information is the Governor for the state of Hawaii, the link is in that post.

Also, you have YET to answer my question: How can government taking over healthcare lower the cost of providing HC services?

If the government is the single payer, then they can bargain with the insurance companies--Statewide or country-wide--and they can also bargain with the pharmaceutical companies to get the prices down just like the Canadian government has done.

If everyone is covered automatically under a single payer system then no one will be able to "game" the system.

I didn't claim that YOU said it was shut down, chill out. If the system was actually bankrupt then I thought that it would have been shut down. So, basically the system is in financial trouble after 40 years? What system ISN'T IN TROUBLE RIGHT NOW?

I think you are still working off of the health care bill that was passed already, I'm not. It was a disaster and a deliberate one at that. It should be scrapped and they should start over from the get-go and do a single payer system. If the govenment has a monopoly on all the medical payments they can call the tune when it comes to insurance and pharmaceutical profits. A single payer system will also get around the high costs that hospitals claim they have to charge to pay for indigent care--there would be no indigent care because everyone would be covered.

Would this single payer system be perfect? Nope, nothing is. What we have now certainly isn't. What we need to look for is a "better" system and improve it as we figure out how.

 

[GenSeneca]

If the government is the single payer, then they can bargain with the insurance companies--Statewide or country-wide--and they can also bargain with the pharmaceutical companies to get the prices down just like the Canadian government has done.

You still haven't explained how such a system would reduce the cost of providing health care. I realize you think you have, but you haven't...

You claim to be a business owner. Lets say you make widgets...

Scenario 1: Each widget costs you $10 to manufacture and you charge $12. People think you're charging too much so government steps in with "collective bargaining" and "bargains", under threat of force, to buy your widgets at $10.25 each. The consumer is now saving $1.75 per widget but governments actions have done nothing to actually bring down the cost of producing that widget, it's only cut into your profits.

Scenario 2: Each widget costs you $10 to manufacture and you charge $12. People think you're charging too much so government steps in with a single payer plan that subsidizes the cost of widgets on the backs of taxpayers. Now widgets sell for $5 each and consumers are very happy. It still costs $10 to manufacture each widget and you still make a $2 profit on each one, but the taxpayer is subsidizing each widget by $7 per unit and government action has done absolutely nothing to bring down the cost of producing widgets.

Scenario 3: Each widget costs you $10 to manufacture and you charge $12. People think you're charging too much and government steps in with both single payer and collective bargaining. Widgets now sell for $5 and consumers are happy. It still costs you $10 to manufacture each widget but you now make only .25c on each unit. Government subsidizes each widget to the tune of $5.25 and that cost is entirely born by the taxpayer. None of these actions have done anything to reduce the cost of producing widgets.

Conclusion: What you are doing is pointing to the consumers costs and claiming that because they are lower, government has reduced the costs of providing health care when, in reality, it hasn't.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You still haven't explained how such a system would reduce the cost of providing health care. I realize you think you have, but you haven't...

You claim to be a business owner. Lets say you make widgets...

Scenario 1: Each widget costs you $10 to manufacture and you charge $12. People think you're charging too much so government steps in with "collective bargaining" and "bargains", under threat of force, to buy your widgets at $10.25 each. The consumer is now saving $1.75 per widget but governments actions have done nothing to actually bring down the cost of producing that widget, it's only cut into your profits.

Scenario 2: Each widget costs you $10 to manufacture and you charge $12. People think you're charging too much so government steps in with a single payer plan that subsidizes the cost of widgets on the backs of taxpayers. Now widgets sell for $5 each and consumers are very happy. It still costs $10 to manufacture each widget and you still make a $2 profit on each one, but the taxpayer is subsidizing each widget by $7 per unit and government action has done absolutely nothing to bring down the cost of producing widgets.

Scenario 3: Each widget costs you $10 to manufacture and you charge $12. People think you're charging too much and government steps in with both single payer and collective bargaining. Widgets now sell for $5 and consumers are happy. It still costs you $10 to manufacture each widget but you now make only .25c on each unit. Government subsidizes each widget to the tune of $5.25 and that cost is entirely born by the taxpayer. None of these actions have done anything to reduce the cost of producing widgets.

Conclusion: What you are doing is pointing to the consumers costs and claiming that because they are lower, government has reduced the costs of providing health care when, in reality, it hasn't.

Your assumption is that health care costs reflect the real cost of providing said health care and I think that is not the case. As I noted all of the overcharging for supposed indigent care will no longer be necessary, the will not need to be so much paperwork since there is only one payer who is big enough to demand streamlined paperwork. The pharmaceuticals will also cost less here just as they do in many other countries.

We are being gouged for health care so that insurance companies can make huge profits (I posted a new article to you on another thread: http://www.alternet.org/story/14570...e_grotesquely_greedy_than_wall_street_bankers ) and even a perfunctory perusal of the piece should point out how much money is being skimmed by greedy bastards.

 

[OldTrapper]

If you do not plan to even attempt answering my question, I would like to politely ask that you avoid posting in my thread.

He never answers questions. Just posts crap like the good little troll.

Question I have is, if everyone is placed in the same pool,( and as of now over 40% of the people are dependent on the government, and some 30% don't pay any taxes now, then you have the government employees who realistically pay no taxes since their income comes from the tax rolls to begin with,) just who is going to pay for it?

Second question would be, name a State that has tried single payor, or public option, where it has worked? Mass. hasn't, Hawaii hasn't, Wisconsin was going to try it till they found out they could not afford it, so, where has it worked?

Then too, Texas tried the Conservative reforms, and it worked.

 

[OldTrapper]

Your assumption is that health care costs reflect the real cost of providing said health care and I think that is not the case. As I noted all of the overcharging for supposed indigent care will no longer be necessary, the will not need to be so much paperwork since there is only one payer who is big enough to demand streamlined paperwork. The pharmaceuticals will also cost less here just as they do in many other countries.

We are being gouged for health care so that insurance companies can make huge profits (I posted a new article to you on another thread: http://www.alternet.org/story/14570...e_grotesquely_greedy_than_wall_street_bankers ) and even a perfunctory perusal of the piece should point out how much money is being skimmed by greedy bastards.

Not to be too far off topic, however, have you noticed how the costs of food, lumber, etc., are all going up?

Seems to me that the corporate bosses in all industries are trying to get as much as they can while they can.

 

[rationalist]

Yes, a system that leaves 40% of Americans with NO HEALTHCARE is obviously much better.

Just admit it. You don't like contributing to the welfare of other people cos you have been suckered into believing that wealth being distributed slightly more evenly is a sin.

And who suckered you?

The rich, the ones with most to 'lose' even though overall society would benefit and so would they.

How did you get to be so gullible?

 

[OldTrapper]

Yes, a system that leaves 40% of Americans with NO HEALTHCARE is obviously much better.

Just admit it. You don't like contributing to the welfare of other people cos you have been suckered into believing that wealth being distributed slightly more evenly is a sin.

And who suckered you?

The rich, the ones with most to 'lose' even though overall society would benefit and so would they.

How did you get to be so gullible?

More BS from the braindead.

No one, not even the loonies from your side, has made a claim that 40% of Americans are without healthcare. According to any count of the population 40% would be around 120 million. Then you forget to take into consideration that NO ONE is denied healthcare in the US by law which is one of the reasons health insurance is so high. Then there are those who do not want to buy health insurance, illegals, etc.

Now, tell me where single payor, or pubic option, has actually worked? Can you do that? Is it actually possible for you to answer a question with reality if you answer it at all?

So, the question then becomes, who is the gullible one?

 

[rationalist]

In the UK everyone has healthcare that is free at the point of use.

Your idea that people just choose not to have health insurance is embarrassing.

If people are poor they are not going to have health insurance as a priority.

Capiche?

And it is a fact that 40% of Americans do not have health insurance.

And yes that is 120 million people.

And that is not right.

 

[GenSeneca]

the will not need to be so much paperwork since there is only one payer who is big enough to demand streamlined paperwork.

I live in the real world, here on earth, where government bureaucracy is the antithesis of "streamlined", where red tape suffocates any hope of efficiency and governments only "solution" is to apply more red tape.

The pharmaceuticals will also cost less here just as they do in many other countries.

We are being gouged for health care so that insurance companies can make huge profits ....money is being skimmed by greedy bastards.

I covered this in Scenario #1. You are not pointing to the government lowering the cost of providing care, only governments ability to cut into the profits of health care providers.

Also, insurance companies have an average profit margin of 2.5%, what is the profit margin of your business?

 

[rationalist]

Gen you don't live in a real world.

You live in one that is hugely manipulated by the rich and powerful to make poor soulds like you think it is good that they are rich and powerful and you aren't.

They brainwash you about the evils of wealth redistribution and you go along with it even though you would be a net gainer financially and everyone would socially.

Why don't you just stop for a second and ask yourself why you swallow all this crap without questioning it?

The rich know that it is very easy to pull on our base instincts by appealing to greed and fear and by god do millions of suckers fall for it.

It is embarrassing watching an alleged grown adult screaming about the evils of themselves getting a better deal.

It really is.