If you’d been following the thread, you’d immediately notice that “we” is “the same people” that Rumor_Watkins mentioned, as indistinct as that is.
The world is as pleasant as it is. Complex issues are really just simple issues, compounded. In this case, it really is (a) or (b). Supply/Demand. Either meet the demand by spending money, or limit the supply by rationing. There’s no shade of gray. There’s no prognostication. This isn’t a conjecture. It’s a basic, fundamental law of the universe.
And it’s also completely unhelpful to the discussion at hand. Today, the market rations healthcare. There will always be rationing of supply of everything. Are you merely concerned that the rationing will be effected by some mechanism other than the ability of people to pay?
There’s a pretty good article in today’s New York Times explaining “why the case against rationing isn’t really a substantive argument. It’s a clever set of buzzwords that tries to hide the fact that societies must make choices.”
On the tube yesterday ,they said only 30 percent of doctors are members of the AMA ,and half of them are retired.
What’s “mere” about that concern? Of course ability to pay is important. If heathcare or health insurance becomes a government monopoly (remember, we’re not talking just help for the poor, we’re talking about a mandatory, obligatory, you must participate system in this context), then there are no alternatives available, even if you can afford them. You don’t see a problem with that?
I don’t “remember” that, because we’re not talking about it. You are. The rest of us are talking about systems which are actually being mooted, none of which involve banning private supplemental health insurance.
Please cite this fundamental law of the universe of which you speak. I must have missed this fundamental law which says that the government must either ration, or spend without restraint. I have looked through several of my economic texts, physics texts, statistics texts and I have yet to find such a law. Perhaps you can be helpful by citing the law’s name in full.
The only theory I can find which begins to approach that is this.
But redirecting a person’s discretionary $$$ from his choice of private insurer to a mandatory govt plan is “banning” by taking away those funds.
For the 46 million uninsured, they don’t care about the redirection of those funds from those rich middle-class. They just want insurance. Fair enough.
But for the people that want to maintain liberty and control of their health insurance $$$ it’s a valid point to consider, no matter how much you dislike it.
It’s certainly limiting; it’s certainly not banning- and the government plan will cost significantly less than any private single-insured plan, and probably less than most or all private employer-provided plans.
I don’t automatically assume govt health care will cost less – even though that point is often repeated. Maybe UHC is the right thing to do regardless, but I don’t kid myself into thinking that it will cost less.
1st, the European countries (who supposedly get more bang for their $$$) have not gone through a cycle of an aging population supported by a smaller productive workforce. They also run deficits. Those countries are looking into privatizing aspects of their system. Why revise the govt plan with market solutions if the govt system is working financially?
2nd, part of the reason Europe can offer UHC is due to the fact that USA does not have UHC. USA indirectly subsidizes Europe via its drug marketplace and medical innovation. It’s similar analogy to USA having cleaner air because it outsourced its manufacturing pollution to China. China’s tolerance for pollution indrectly subsidizes USA’s cleaner air & water.
We are not just talking about helping the poor. That much you got right. But the system we have now provides health care for the wealthy or those covered. It neglects small towns. It limits the number of doctors. It is wasteful and way overpriced. It rewards denying health services and cutting people who statistics say may become costly.
I am on Medicare . They sent me a letter saying next birthday I qualify for 6 preventative tests. They have an interest in keeping me healthy. The insurance companies just want sick people gone.
Well over half the personal bankruptcies are due to medical problems. Most of them had coverage. Their families are being thrown overboard because of profits. Our system does not work.
Britain and Italy entered the so-called “fifth stage” of the population growth model (what you’re talking about) well before the US. “Privatizing aspects” of a system (cite, by the way?) does not mean the system is broken or ineffective, just that it’s being tinkered with, as all systems are.
There will still be plenty of incentive to research and develop new drugs and new treatment methods. In any case, the rest of the world subsidizes our healthcare system by providing nearly a quarter of our doctors.
Britain’s NHS was installed in 1948. The people born then are only 61-years old now. Britain has not gone through the population cycle where citizens in the 60s, 70s, 80s are depending on smaller workforce pool to fund health benefits of retirees. We won’t know how it will play out for another 30 years. The deficits that they have today are not helping the situation.
Ok, let’s say it costs about $500,000 to train each doctor (tuition for 8 years of school). How many extra foreign doctors is that 25%? 5000? That’s less than $3 billion dollars. That doesn’t seem like a subsidy worth mentioning considering that USA healthcare spending is $2.4 trillion.
What are you talking about? The NHS has been covering old people since 1948, and the median age of the population has steadily increased since then.
Of that $2.4 trillion, a tiny fraction is spent on R&D. Most goes to drug costs, administrative costs, and labor costs - and labor costs are by far the biggest reason why our health care costs so much more per capita than other industrialized nations’ yet produces equal or worse patient care outcomes (see infant mortality rates, for example).
Forgot to mention: our “subsidy” of pharmaceutical R&D is an international-trade bargaining chip, and the US government has used it to bash foreign trade negotiators over the head to win lots of other concessions. It’s also important to note that marketing drugs in other countries is much cheaper than it is here, since most countries do not allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.
And the ever expanding (costly) options for medical procedures, medical technology, and drugs has also been increasing since 1948. Also, the citizens expectations for receiving those new medical solutions also increases. To you, the cycle has already played out. To me, it has not.
I don’t understand how that translates into foreign doctors being a major subsidy.
Labor costs account for the majority in the difference in spending - not drug costs.
$3 billion subsidy of foreign doctors covers the majority of labor spending?
As RNATB points out, a government monopoly on health coverage is not on the table. Do you concede the point that health care is rationed right now and that, therefore, rationing itself is not an argument against government-funded healthcare, although the method by which care is rationed may be?
The majority of us who have health insurance didn’t go out and shop around for the best option and buy it with discretionary income. We take whatever our employer offers because it’s too expensive to buy outright. Some employers might offer a few slight variations of the same insurance product, but many do not. Effectively, I have no choice in my health insurance today.
And it costs more and cuts coverage, year after year.
No. I bet it covers the difference in per capita R&D spending, though.
Anyway, those are separate points. The point here is that us subsidizing other people’s drugs is not the reason our healthcare is grossly overpriced.