No, I’m sorta flailing on this because I can’t clearly articulate the distinction between expenditures for defense, from government pockets, and those that are totalled up as a fraction of GDP, and because I don’t understand it, exactly, I just sound as clueless as I am, so I’m not going to pursue it.
Re-reading his cite, the percentage of employers dropping coverage was higher than I initially though. Ignorance fought.
Anecdotally as well, I never cared for HMO coverage. In my experience, the networks were smaller, and you had to get a referral from your PCP in order to go to any kind of specialist.
In my PPO, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors in my network, including every type of specialist and sub-specialist I’ve ever heard of. All I have to do is check the insurance company website to search a list of doctors in my area, and call the doctor’s office to schedule an appointment. No need for referrals or a separate visit to the PCP, whom I only see once per year.
And I think high deductible plans can be a good thing, in that it gets people at least thinking about whether or not certain tests/procedures are necessary, or if they can be done at a lower cost.
Two examples:
Prescription drug coverage: If I use the mail order service under my plan, a 90 supply of common drugs can be less than $10. If I get the same exact drug at a retail pharmacy, it will be much more.
Likewise, lab tests. If I need a blood test, the hospital, and the hospital-affiliated “convenient care” locations will charge me a substantially higher rate than if I go to Quest Diagnostics for the same test.
If I were paying basically a flat rate through an HMO, I probably wouldn’t have those choices.
Mind you, I haven’t looked into HMO coverage in many years; maybe the above is outdated and/or wrong. 
…any further. Because I got caught.
At the risk of disrupting this snarkfest, I am curious.
Why is health care not a proper role of government?
Is education a proper role of government? (It does not have to be federally funded, but it is clearly government funded and the means to provide it precede the adoption of the Constitution, beginning with the Northwest Ordinance in 1787.)
Is commerce and the ability to provide transportation a proper role of government? Were the various canals, railroads, highways, lighthouses, and rescue services improper insertions of government into roles in which it should not have been involved?
In terms of health, were the Marine Hospital Fund, later the Marine Hospital Service, and now the United States Public Health Service improper roles for the government? Should we decommission the Surgeon General’s office?
For many years, schools were only private institutions. We have had privately owned toll roads and railroads. While one might deplore the government treading where formerly only private enterprise had ventured, it was government investment in schools, roads, and similar venues that allowed the U.S. to grow both in size and wealth. It was government intrusion into private enterprise that eventually eliminated slavery and has made strides toward creating a society in which the majority of people are accorded equal rights.
I admit being a little surprised to see the discussion turning toward economics. I was under the impression that opposition to the ACA (or anything that might develop from it in the direction of single-payer, especially federally-funded single-payer) was based on philosophy, not facts.
Let’s go in the other direction and ask what is NOT the proper role of government. Since health care is a positive good and you believe that it should be a role of government, what other positive good should not be the role of government?
Food is a positive good, and when people are travelling, they should have access to restaurants. Should we socialize the restaurant industry?
IOW, where is the limiting principle in your argument that prevents complete socialism?
Nope. Bricker, the OP of this thread, expressed a view that a certain set of actions is not a proper role of government and he expressed that view as a foundation of his opposition to the ACA (and perhaps even the HACA).
Your questions are certainly valid points to consider–for which I would suggest opening a new thread rather than hijacking this one. In the context of this thread, I sought the rationale behind his explicit statement. I am not even sure that I would be inclined to dispute his answer, but I would very much like to know his rationale in the context of the history of this nation.
Supposedly, he’s saying it’s not the proper role of the federal government, but that it is the proper role of the state governments. It’s a federalism argument, not a libertarian one.
Yes. This was fleshed out a bit as the thread unfolded. I thought the distinction was clear but others raised the same questions.
Several times.
Hey, just for the record, I would be totally fine with Virginia adopting a health care plan. In case you were wondering.
Socializing the restaurant industry would be comparable to a complete govt takeover of all healthcare. As that is not what anyone is advocating for, it is a very flawed analogy.
If you wanted a better analogy for some sort of UHC program, it would be more like the govt providing agricultural subsidies, as well as food stamps, free school lunch, and other means tested methods of ensuring both our food supply, and ensuring that hunger is as minimal as possible, and these are things that the public has, for the most part, accepted as a proper role of government.
I think some numbers here might be appropriate.
The US spends about 10 000 $ per person per year on healthcare. Or 18 % of GDP. (Cite) That is divided between private and public spending, which is close to a 50/50 split. (cite) The EU average is about 9.5 % of GDP(Cite) which I think works out to roughly 3300 per person. That is total private and public expense.
Notethis chart. It is a good one. It shows the total, public and private healthcare spending in OECD nations. Note how the US public spending is more than all but two other nations public spending. Those nations cover a 100 % of their populations for that: the US covers 28 % for the public spending. Also note how many nations public and private spending total less than either the public or private spending in the US.
The US spends about 4.5 % of GDP on its military budget. (Cite) That is to keep a military that can handle trouble not just in Europe but also in the Pacific, etc. The total military spending is 1/4 of the healthcare spending, and half of the amount the US overspends by.
The EU averages a military spending of 1,6 %. (cite) That totals up to a budget very roughly four times Russias and 1,25 times Chinas.
The total military spending between the EU and the US difference, even without considering that the US military is set up to do more things in more places, is 3 %. The healthcare spending difference is 9 %, twice the US entire military budget.
Saying that Europe can afford UHC because of savings to the Europes military budgets has the amounts backwards. The differences in healthcare expenditure are large enough to drown the military spending differences.
Incidentally, the entire planets medical research spending is about 320 billion dollars. US healthcare overspending is 5 times as large.
People sometimes lose track of magnitudes in these matters. UHC is not just a little bit cheaper than the current US setup. If the US instead ran an average UHC system, it would save twice its military budget every year, while covering 100 % of the population.
The US currently spends more money per person on government healthcare than most UHC countries. Additionally it also spends more private money than the total other nations spend, per person on public and private healthcare.
And its overall results and outcomes for this spending are below par.
Well, the moderator has said that this is a hijack of the thread. I disagree, but I am not the one with the promise of free coffee mugs, so I’ll defer to his ruling and start another thread in MPSIMS.
Yeah, here’s a better analogy: You are required to eat at a privately owned restaurant at least 4 times per month, and the feds will give you a list of menu items you must order.
Wait, you would support the Commonwealth of Virginia adopting a health care plan or you would simply believe that as a sovereign state it has the power to do so?
If you were in the Virginia Legislature would you vote for a UHC Virginia plan? Keep in mind that I’m about to revoke that conservative card you just got back. 
I would be against my state of Ohio setting up a UHC state system, unless it had cooperation with at least several of our neighboring states, otherwise, my taxes are going to be going to treat kentuckians and indianians whose political leaders did not give them access to healthcare in their state.
I am fine with the occasional free rider in a system, as trying to get rid of free riders usually costs more than they do, but entire states as free riders will not work.
Don’t you think that some sort of Ohio ID would be required to get coverage by the Ohio UHC?
It depends on how it is set up and what restrictions it has.
Ideally, you could have an Ohio ID, or one of a dozen other states that are participating in the same group.
But, the question is, do we let someone die, just because they were misfortunate enough to live in a state where their legislators denied them healthcare? Someone from Kentucky ends up in one of Ohio’s emergency rooms, it would be a bit rude to kick them out to die on the curb, but unless kentucky is willing to pay for the care of its residents, then people crossing over into cincinnati for treatment would bankrupt the whole state’s UHC budget.
So, if you are going to do residency restrictions, how do you do that? For in state tuition at colleges, you have to have lived in the state for a few years, and you could try that, but then that means that anyone who moves to a new state has no health coverage for a few years.
Setting up at the state level may be a “wiser” move from a federal/state framework perspective, but it is not a wise move if you are trying to cover everyone with a reasonable medical safety net.
I guess you can tilt at windmills for the next 100 years trying to get UHC passed at the federal level, but at what point do you say “this isn’t working” and try a different approach? UHC is a laudable goal, but I just don’t see it happening at the federal level. So what’s the next best thing?
That doesn’t seem too difficult to me. If you have an Ohio ID, you get covered. Ohio IDs are only given to people who live in Ohio. (Not saying this is the case now, just something that could be implemented) Student IDs to a school in Ohio would also be good.
Discussed in detail above. What I’d favor is a public option that does not operate at a loss.