CDZ Nationalized Healthcare

[task0778]

Nobody is calling for nationalized health care.

Those calling for single payer are. If the government is the 'payer' (aka employer) of doctors, it controls health care. You can bicker with the terminology, but not the actual power dynamics of what is proposed.

Are doctors employees of insurance companies?

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

So I guess you guys do not believe the left-leaning Urban Institute's study (among others) that basically says a single payer system would cost us an additional 32 trillion over the next 10 years. That's ADDED costs BTW. There's a reason why the SP system got shot down in Vermont, Maryland, Colorado, and California. If the blue states don't want it then how in the hell can it be a good idea for the country as a whole?

And then there's the question of access, which I have brought up before and no one seems to take that into account. By some estimates there are from 30 - 50 million uninsured in this country and you want to give them all free access to our HC system? Not sure if that number includes the illegals who are already here or are on their way, think anchor babies. Same number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc., can you imagine the waiting time to get into see a doctor, let alone a specialist of some kind. In other countries with SP, people die waiting to see a specialist, just like some of our vets do today under the VA.

And you're going to pay these people the Medicare rates, which is as much as 40% less for what they get for private insurance. What future doctor in his/her right mind is going to take on the enormous debt of medical school and residency? What current doctor wants to take that kind of a hit to their income? Most will go into private practice and consortiums, or are you going to outlaw that? I think such a law would not pass constitutional muster, the SCOTUS would shoot it down. And if you pay the providers more money then the cost to the taxpayers goes up substantially.

 

[dblack]

So I guess you guys do not believe the left-leaning Urban Institute's study (among others) that basically says a single payer system would cost us an additional 32 trillion over the next 10 years.

I haven't even looked at it. I don't care whether it costs more or less. I don't want government taking over health care in either case.

 

[longknife]

Nobody is calling for nationalized health care.

Those calling for single payer are. If the government is the 'payer' (aka employer) of doctors, it controls health care. You can bicker with the terminology, but not the actual power dynamics of what is proposed.

Are doctors employees of insurance companies?

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

 

[longknife]

So I guess you guys do not believe the left-leaning Urban Institute's study (among others) that basically says a single payer system would cost us an additional 32 trillion over the next 10 years.

I haven't even looked at it. I don't care whether it costs more or less. I don't want government taking over health care in either case.

Amen! Government NEVER makes things better, cheaper, or more efficient. Never!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Those calling for single payer are. If the government is the 'payer' (aka employer) of doctors, it controls health care. You can bicker with the terminology, but not the actual power dynamics of what is proposed.

Are doctors employees of insurance companies?

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Are doctors employees of insurance companies?

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

It was a way to attract employees. Benefits became a game changer until everyone started doing it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

It was a way to attract employees. Benefits became a game changer until everyone started doing it.

Indeed, one mess created another.

 

[dblack]

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

It was a way to attract employees. Benefits became a game changer until everyone started doing it.

It was also pushed heavily by big labor, which had a lot more power at the time. What they really wanted was nationalized health care. But they couldn't pull it off and saw employer provided health care as an 'inroad' that would lay the groundwork for nationalization in the end.

 

[danielpalos]

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

It was a way to attract employees. Benefits became a game changer until everyone started doing it.

It was also pushed heavily by big labor, which had a lot more power at the time. What they really wanted was nationalized health care. But they couldn't pull it off and saw employer provided health care as an 'inroad' that would lay the groundwork for nationalization in the end.

we have a general welfare clause; what is the best way to accomplish health care reform?

 

[dblack]

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

It was a way to attract employees. Benefits became a game changer until everyone started doing it.

It was also pushed heavily by big labor, which had a lot more power at the time. What they really wanted was nationalized health care. But they couldn't pull it off and saw employer provided health care as an 'inroad' that would lay the groundwork for nationalization in the end.

we have a general welfare clause; what is the best way to accomplish health care reform?

Does the CDZ allow your moronic koans?

 

[anotherlife]

This has already been achieved. The capital is computers and they have replaced people.

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

False propaganda.

low wage jobs are costing us money as well. we cannot afford to subsidize capitalists with cheap labor in a First World economy.

The capitalists control the world economy far enough that if you are not cheap enough like free, then they will simply import a million Latinos to do your job.

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

 

[anotherlife]

No because unemployment compensation comes from working wages, which don't exist for those who haven't worked for a year.

sounds like a right winger, invented that policy.

It is an insurance scheme. So it can work in short term accidental unemployment, like business cycles. But when you are replaced by a machine then you are different, then you are structurally unemployed. And then nothing helps. My solution above would though, although that would require to break the taboo.

With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, a Person could be market friendly and provide those market based metrics.

No because that way the whole unemployment insurance idea collapses into a pyramid scheme. The problem is that the actual unemployment benefit cash flow is not supported by your labor, and if you labor then you are not unemployed. A contradiction.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

unemployment compensation produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

So then how do you pay the people their unemployment checks when you have no exports to back it up? Plus even if you do, is it ethical to take away the money of a worker to pay someone who will never be employable?

For your socialist logic to work, it would be necessary that the owner of the assets pays the unemployment compensations. That would get around the pyramid scheme, but that too is unsustainable, the Soviet Union tried it for 80 years before it collapsed for it.

 

[anotherlife]

Are doctors employees of insurance companies?

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

 

[HenryBHough]

Nationalized medicine is not impossible.

Yes, the cost would be sizable.

Taxes to fund it would be interesting. The odds are it would land heavily on businesses which, after all, would no longer have to be competitive on providing health care to attract/keep good workers. That could trickle down into higher prices for consumer goods or business failures which wouldn't be as difficult for laid-off workers because they wouldn't have to worry about losing health coverage.

Of course there wold be a temporary shortage of medical personnel but that could be alleviated by a draft of students showing suitable learning abilities on a mandatory national test. They'd be needed quickly but accelerated training would overcome that in perhaps 2-3 years. The quality of said care to be measured by modernized standards based on productivity rather than outcome.

Americans would quickly become accustomed to long waiting lists.

If dental care and optical care were also included there'd need to be standardization on tings like frames and dentures. I do think the results would be more akin to those seen among The British than observed among Russians.

It's only going to require some patience and flexibility.

 

[danielpalos]

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

It was a way to attract employees. Benefits became a game changer until everyone started doing it.

It was also pushed heavily by big labor, which had a lot more power at the time. What they really wanted was nationalized health care. But they couldn't pull it off and saw employer provided health care as an 'inroad' that would lay the groundwork for nationalization in the end.

we have a general welfare clause; what is the best way to accomplish health care reform?

Does the CDZ allow your moronic koans?

no ideas, but want to be taken seriously, anyway; how right wing of you.

 

[danielpalos]

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

False propaganda.

low wage jobs are costing us money as well. we cannot afford to subsidize capitalists with cheap labor in a First World economy.

The capitalists control the world economy far enough that if you are not cheap enough like free, then they will simply import a million Latinos to do your job.

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

we want an Institutional upward pressure on wages not Individual. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. capital should seek gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in any First World.

 

[danielpalos]

sounds like a right winger, invented that policy.

It is an insurance scheme. So it can work in short term accidental unemployment, like business cycles. But when you are replaced by a machine then you are different, then you are structurally unemployed. And then nothing helps. My solution above would though, although that would require to break the taboo.

With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, a Person could be market friendly and provide those market based metrics.

No because that way the whole unemployment insurance idea collapses into a pyramid scheme. The problem is that the actual unemployment benefit cash flow is not supported by your labor, and if you labor then you are not unemployed. A contradiction.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

unemployment compensation produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

So then how do you pay the people their unemployment checks when you have no exports to back it up? Plus even if you do, is it ethical to take away the money of a worker to pay someone who will never be employable?

For your socialist logic to work, it would be necessary that the owner of the assets pays the unemployment compensations. That would get around the pyramid scheme, but that too is unsustainable, the Soviet Union tried it for 80 years before it collapsed for it.

The laws of demand and supply work regardless of right wing fantasy. Solving simple poverty ensure greater liquidity in our capital based markets.

Government merely fixes Standards, in our case.

 

[danielpalos]

If a doctor were paid exclusively by one insurance company it would be fair to describe them that way, yes. But that's not usually how it works.

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

we have a federal republic like Venezuela. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

 

[anotherlife]

False propaganda.

low wage jobs are costing us money as well. we cannot afford to subsidize capitalists with cheap labor in a First World economy.

The capitalists control the world economy far enough that if you are not cheap enough like free, then they will simply import a million Latinos to do your job.

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

we want an Institutional upward pressure on wages not Individual. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. capital should seek gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in any First World.

No, because taxes are a morally bankrupt idea in the 21st century. Everybody knows that taxes are no longer collected to sponsor public services but to control your behavior instead. A socialist liberal achievement. Bravo.

And by the way, the only place where you can collect true taxes is just the workers household. That is where all taxes are passed down to as business expenses. Then taxation becomes also unstable because every worker is constantly inched towards unemployment as they keep getting replaced by technology. Hehehe.

 

[anotherlife]

It is an insurance scheme. So it can work in short term accidental unemployment, like business cycles. But when you are replaced by a machine then you are different, then you are structurally unemployed. And then nothing helps. My solution above would though, although that would require to break the taboo.

With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, a Person could be market friendly and provide those market based metrics.

No because that way the whole unemployment insurance idea collapses into a pyramid scheme. The problem is that the actual unemployment benefit cash flow is not supported by your labor, and if you labor then you are not unemployed. A contradiction.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

unemployment compensation produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

So then how do you pay the people their unemployment checks when you have no exports to back it up? Plus even if you do, is it ethical to take away the money of a worker to pay someone who will never be employable?

For your socialist logic to work, it would be necessary that the owner of the assets pays the unemployment compensations. That would get around the pyramid scheme, but that too is unsustainable, the Soviet Union tried it for 80 years before it collapsed for it.

The laws of demand and supply work regardless of right wing fantasy. Solving simple poverty ensure greater liquidity in our capital based markets.

Government merely fixes Standards, in our case.

No, because most of the US economy runs on 3rd party payments, so outside the supply demand negotiations. Greater liquidity leads to greater poverty too. And the current government fix of standards which is nothing but constant blind underwriting of every junk loan contract leads nowhere.