Joe Biden promises to "provide health care for all"

[TwistedTea]

I don't understand why a person wouldn't be able to pay cash and then submit a claim form to their insurance

They just spent that cash on new rims for their truck

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

They just spent that cash on new rims for their truck

This is the sort of rhetoric that is true, but won't get you anywhere. Yup, you'll see patients complain about a hospital bill for $1000 while flashing around a $500 purse, a $1500 cell phone, 20 tattoos, a $300/month smoking habit, and a new luxury car. However, there are just as many patients destroyed by medical bills who really never had a chance to save anyway and live fairly reasonably. While an incredible amount of this is just irresponsibility and people choosing to spend their money on luxuries and vices instead of health, an equally large part of it is that the system is broken.

I just don't believe that M4A will actually fix it. M4A attacks the easy targets: insurance companies, healthcare workers, and pharma. It completely fails to address the much larger structural issue of corporate medicine, and it fails to demonstrate increased access to care.

 

[Lawpy]

Kick private equity out of healthcare immediately

 

[TwistedTea]

This is the sort of rhetoric that is true, but won't get you anywhere. Yup, you'll see patients complain about a hospital bill for $1000 while flashing around a $500 purse, a $1500 cell phone, 20 tattoos, a $300/month smoking habit, and a new luxury car. However, there are just as many patients destroyed by medical bills who really never had a chance to save anyway and live fairly reasonably. While an incredible amount of this is just irresponsibility and people choosing to spend their money on luxuries and vices instead of health, an equally large part of it is that the system is broken.

I just don't believe that M4A will actually fix it. M4A attacks the easy targets: insurance companies, healthcare workers, and pharma. It completely fails to address the much larger structural issue of corporate medicine, and it fails to demonstrate increased access to care.

Well yeah we know both types and those in between exist but in general americans have poor habits and are awful at managing their money. its funny now foreigners come here and do better than americans who have had everything handed to them. such a joke. I am not a republican but I find the lack of personal responsibility rheteric of the left to be disheartening and honestly contradictory to most university sponsored studies of success. I don't argue that there arent privileged vs not privileged people but throwing away personal responsibility for a safety net is not always the answer.

 

[TwistedTea]

Kick private equity out of healthcare immediately

I would expect a large diminishment in healthcare discoveries by dong this. Could you imagine kicking private equity out of microprocessors, automotive industry, and/or the software industry?

 

[Lawpy]

I would expect a large diminishment in healthcare discoveries by dong this. Could you imagine kicking private equity out of microprocessors, automotive industry, and/or the software industry?

No but healthcare is unique. Increase NIH funding by 500%

 

[TwistedTea]

No but healthcare is unique. Increase NIH funding by 500%

How is it unique, (not disagreeing) but I feel if we make the orange not worth the squeeze we will loose a lot of brainpower.

Removing "for profit" is the kneejerk reflex that just does not work as intended... see universities, colleges, etc.

 

[Lawpy]

How is it unique, (not disagreeing) but I feel if we make the orange not worth the squeeze we will loose a lot of brainpower

NIH funding needs to be higher and far more efficient to cover the costs of banning private equity. You can't put a profit on a basic good such as health.

 

[TwistedTea]

NIH funding needs to be higher and far more efficient to cover the costs of banning private equity. You can't put a profit on a basic good such as health.

I cant say yes to something that completely removes a competitive market and gives all the power to a government entity. History shows it does not work. If history says it works I would agree with you but it does not. Not saying government does not have its part but capitalism, while flawed, is the best thing we have at this time. The properly regulated free market has produced more good (even counting for its atrocities) than any government monopoly. Maybe one day this will change but as per history I am keeping my capitalism cards on the table.

 

[Lawpy]

I cant say yes to something that completely removes a competitive market and gives all the power to a government entity. History shows it does not work. If history says it works I would agree with you but it does not. Not saying government does not have its part but capitalism, while flawed, is the best thing we have at this time. The properly regulated free market has produced more good (even counting for its atrocities) than any government monopoly. Maybe one day this will change but as per history I am keeping my capitalism cards on the table.

Private equity is a threat to capitalism

 

[TwistedTea]

Private equity is a threat to capitalism

Good ideas aren't free. private investing is a cornerstone of capitalism. I understand your sentiment that getting profit out of saving lives sounds good on the surface but it is a gross oversimplification.. sadly one that even educated people have bought into.


Probably the easiest example is UPS vs USPS. Which do you prefer?

 

[Lawpy]

Good ideas aren't free. private investing is a cornerstone of capitalism

Investing yes but private equity buys small businesses and sells them to megacorporations, ruining free market

 

[TwistedTea]

Investing yes but private equity buys small businesses and sells them to megacorporations, ruining free market

I think what you are trying to say is to place laws into place that prohibit anti-competitive practices?

 

[Lawpy]

I think what you are trying to say is to place laws into place that prohibit anti-competitive practices?

Right but i'm going further to say private equity is fundamentally anticapitalist at its core. They have billions of dollars of resources to destroy and repair anything they see fit. That's a huge huge problem for healthcare especially private practice

 

[TwistedTea]

Right but i'm going further to say private equity is fundamentally anticapitalist at its core. They have billions of dollars of resources to destroy and repair anything they see fit. That's a huge huge problem for healthcare especially private practice

Its just a bunch of money trying to make more money, I wouldnt quite call it anticapitalist at its core. Where to draw the line in the sand is the difficulty part, but I will say its not at zero.

 

[whataschool_classof24]

Private equity is a threat to capitalism

I would argue government monopolizing an industry is a threat to capitalism and the field that it is taking over

 

[Lawpy]

I would argue government monopolizing an industry is a threat to capitalism and the field that it is taking over

It's not a threat to get rid of an anticapitalist entity altogether. Private equity can be banned and dissolved in favor of independent investors

 

[whataschool_classof24]

Investing yes but private equity buys small businesses and sells them to megacorporations, ruining free market

And current regulations set in place by the government have taken small private practice joints to the cleaner as large corporate medicine is taking over

 

[Lawpy]

And current regulations set in place by the government have taken small private practice joints to the cleaner as large corporate medicine is taking over

That's because private equity captured the government

>see lobbying, revolving door etc

 

[whataschool_classof24]

NIH funding needs to be higher and far more efficient to cover the costs of banning private equity. You can't put a profit on a basic good such as health.

I know next to nothing about the NIH, but I googled doc salaries in the uk and google shows me 80-100k. If you told pre-meds/med students/residents "hey here is your salary for giving up your prime years to spend in the library and in the hospital, oh and here's 300k of debt", you would see an insane brain drain that would strain our system deeply.

 

[whataschool_classof24]

That's because private equity captured the government

>see lobbying, revolving door etc

fair point, just look at the nursing lobbyists

 

[Lawpy]

I know next to nothing about the NIH, but I googled doc salaries in the uk and google shows me 80-100k. If you told pre-meds/med students/residents "hey here is your salary for giving up your prime years to spend in the library and in the hospital, oh and here's 300k of debt", you would see an insane brain drain that would strain our system deeply.

Oh i was talking from research standpoint to show brain drain isn't lost. The UK has universal healthcare through NHS iirc? I don't think a similar system through Medicare for All will happen anytime soon but i strongly believe physician salaries must be much higher (far higher than what free market will set)

 

[Lawpy]

Also set the max med school debt at $400K and increase resident salaries to $70-80K/year

 

[TwistedTea]

That's because private equity captured the government

>see lobbying, revolving door etc

Yeah but why do we want to give more power to the government allowing lobbying. if we get rid of PE something else will capture the government. and like the poster above said the government has really killed small practices more than anything else with ridiculous requirements and allowing large corps to get reimbursed more for the same services provided by the little guys. So I really don’t want to hand over more cash to small practice killers (government)

 

[FutureInternist]

Imagine I ask the support of this question:

"Would you favor or support a health plan that is described as follows:

20% of your pay in premiums, after which you pay the first $5000 every single year

You cannot choose any doctor you want

medical bankruptcy will be the #1 cause of bankruptcy

insurance bureaucrats will decide if you can get a particular procedure

if you lose your job, you lose your healthcare (or you can pay out the nose with your new lack of income)

you can be denied coverage for any reason"

This is pretty close to our current health system - and I bet you it would be a pretty unpopular choice if we were starting today. It's not fair to compare questions decribing single payer boogeymen if you don't do the same with other systems.

Don’t forget the fact that GoFundMe will be your “insurance” when you lose your actual insurance 😡

 

[FutureInternist]

I would expect a large diminishment in healthcare discoveries by dong this. Could you imagine kicking private equity out of microprocessors, automotive industry, and/or the software industry?

I don’t get the point of having the latest medication for left renal cell carcinoma, with tumor marker Kappa, in pts over 65, born in Kansas, and never visited NY, when you have kids (and adults) literally dying due to lack of the most basic meds.

 

[FutureInternist]

I know next to nothing about the NIH, but I googled doc salaries in the uk and google shows me 80-100k. If you told pre-meds/med students/residents "hey here is your salary for giving up your prime years to spend in the library and in the hospital, oh and here's 300k of debt", you would see an insane brain drain that would strain our system deeply.

Whats their medical school debt?
Whats their malpractice premiums?
How much time is wasted in talking to and filling out insurance forms?
What is their Pres-Ganey score? 🤪

I would gladly take a 50-100K in less income to have these and many many issues about US system sorted.

 

[TwistedTea]

I don’t get the point of having the latest medication for left renal cell carcinoma, with tumor marker Kappa, in pts over 65, born in Kansas, and never visited NY, when you have kids (and adults) literally dying due to lack of the most basic meds.

Our two POV aren’t mutually exclusive.

the only type of universal healthcare I would maybe be for would be basic super cheap stuff for everyone and the people who can afford can get more expensive care. Where to draw the line I don’t know. Everyone can’t have Lexus care.
Maybe free care up to age 21 or so but adults need to have some skin in the game. And Americans are financial irresponsible so see my above and others above posts for ideas on that.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Our two POV aren’t mutually exclusive.

the only type of universal healthcare I would maybe be for would be basic super cheap stuff for everyone and the people who can afford can get more expensive care. Where to draw the line I don’t know. Everyone can’t have Lexus care.
Maybe free care up to age 21 or so but adults need to have some skin in the game. And Americans are financial irresponsible so see my above and others above posts for ideas on that.

MediCAID for all, you can buy up to MediCARE or private insurance.

 

[TwistedTea]

MediCAID for all, you can buy up to MediCARE or private insurance.

Yep. Super basic. Generic only except in RARE needs. Primary care focus. If you keep doing stupid stuff and aren’t compliant you can lose it. Etc. Heavy midlevel use to save money
Sadly far left wants everyone to have LexusCare. Which anyone with a brain knows is not sustainable. I’ll never be guilted into voting for that.

 

[jambro]

Can you explain what is unsustainable @TwistedTea ? And please don’t say price because the whole point is that it’s cheaper and any honest analysis admits that.

 

[TwistedTea]

Can you explain what is unsustainable @TwistedTea ? And please don’t say price because the whole point is that it’s cheaper and any honest analysis admits that.

What is cheaper exactly ?? please specify. People say it’s cheaper but always leave out the burden on tax payers. Every country with socialized medicine has the issue of rationing of care. Which is OK as long as it’s very basic, not a huge burden on those who make good $$$, and those with money can purchase private insurance. Socialized medicine is not the world I want to live in sorry.

I’m willing to meet somewhere in the middle but healthcare should not straight up be “free” to all.

 

[jambro]

What do you think is the burden on tax payers for this plan? What is it compared to what your average (30k salary) person pays in premiums right now much less including the deductible?

if your argument is that allowing everyone to get care = rationing and wait times, and you’re saying we DONT have wait times now, aren’t you saying that not everyone is able to get care? So you’re ok with rationing by money but not need.

I don’t doubt that a person posting on SDN is someone who doesn’t see the benefits of socialized medicine

 

[TwistedTea]

What do you think is the burden on tax payers for this plan? What is it compared to what your average (30k salary) person pays in premiums right now much less including the deductible?

if your argument is that allowing everyone to get care = rationing and wait times, and you’re saying we DONT have wait times now, aren’t you saying that not everyone is able to get care? So you’re ok with rationing by money but not need.

I don’t doubt that a person posting on SDN is someone who doesn’t see the benefits of socialized medicine

We don’t have wait times compared to other places. When people don’t have some skin in the game abuse happens. I am ok rationing by money because let’s be honest it happens in every country with socialized medicine. We need fixes in our healthcare system but broad stroke free everything is never the answer. and there are many on SDN who agree with this.
Of course the devils in the details of whichever action the new administration takes and I hope whatever they do is reasonable. Removing capitalism as a whole from healthcare is not the answer to healthcare nor has it ever been in the past.

 

[jambro]

I disagree that single payer healthcare means eliminating capitalism. Instead you will have no more networks and physicians will be able to complete with each other for patients.

Personally my ideal healthcare plan bans private equity, allows for physician ownership of hospitals, increases Medicare payments to some sort of weighted Medicare/private average (also increase reimbursements for things that Medicare is completely out of whack on) and eliminates Medicaid.

Anyone whose patient base are predominantly on Medicaid would be extremely happy, and those who are not can at least enjoy being paid for every single patient encounter (especially looking at EM) and an on average higher payment w/ Medicare increase plus a way lower overhead to actually get the reimbursement.

 

[jambro]

My issue with the “skin in the game” argument (assuming we’re talking about deductibles?) is that it’s very different depending on your income. 5k means an average person can never afford healthcare period, whereas 5k for a wealthy person might mean nothing.

So if I want a system where everyone has “skin in the game” maybe if you’re wealthy your deductible is 15k or 20k? Would that be better? After all, fraud waste abuse etc.

 

[DrNotaDr]

We don’t have wait times compared to other places. When people don’t have some skin in the game abuse happens. I am ok rationing by money because let’s be honest it happens in every country with socialized medicine. We need fixes in our healthcare system but broad stroke free everything is never the answer. and there are many on SDN who agree with this.
Of course the devils in the details of whichever action the new administration takes and I hope whatever they do is reasonable. Removing capitalism as a whole from healthcare is not the answer to healthcare nor has it ever been in the past.

Our Medicaid patients have no “skin in the game” now so that issue already exists. The middle class who work hard are the people most screwed by our system. These people will use healthcare to get well and get back to work. The poor continue the same abuses, the rich continue to not care. Single payer is almost 100% upside compared to our current corrupt immoral system.

 

[TwistedTea]

Everything stated above doesn’t require a single payer system to work. Devil is in the details. I would expect reimbursement to tank under m4a as if one only have one payer why would they pay more than table scraps? Skin in the game = if you are non compliant and abuse the system you loose it and get nothing. There is a lot wrong with our system of which much has been hashed our above but I have always failed to see how single payer would resolve it. None of the things mentioned above would be fixed with single payer but would be things that could be changed without it.

 

[TwistedTea]

My issue with the “skin in the game” argument (assuming we’re talking about deductibles?) is that it’s very different depending on your income. 5k means an average person can never afford healthcare period, whereas 5k for a wealthy person might mean nothing.

So if I want a system where everyone has “skin in the game” maybe if you’re wealthy your deductible is 15k or 20k? Would that be better? After all, fraud waste abuse etc.

Skin in the game just means roadblocks and deterrents to abuse and over use. Free doctor visits ? Dang I can see this going well....

 

[jambro]

Skin in the game just means roadblocks and deterrents to abuse and over use. Free doctor visits ? Dang I can see this going well....

I know that selection bias is a thing, but for some reason people think that there's some huge percentage of the population who are either malingerers or who just enjoy going to the doctor for no reason. I don't think thats true. Most people dont want to take time out of their day to go somewhere and wait and do something that isn't fun. Most people probably don't go to the doctor as much as they should, in fact, for that same reason

Everything stated above doesn’t require a single payer system to work. Devil is in the details. I would expect reimbursement to tank under m4a as if one only have one payer why would they pay more than table scraps? Skin in the game = if you are non compliant and abuse the system you loose it and get nothing. There is a lot wrong with our system of which much has been hashed our above but I have always failed to see how single payer would resolve it. None of the things mentioned above would be fixed with single payer but would be things that could be changed without it.

There's no reason for reimbursement to tank because, as we all know, physician salaries don't make up that much of healthcare spending. Furthermore, with a single payer system, you'd be screwing pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, etc. It would be stupid to screw over every doctors too; they're just not that expensive to buy out. If you screwed doctors too much you could easily have mass retirements and then your healthcare system would actually be plagued with wait times and it would be a disaster. If you're concerned about reimbursements I get it but medicare can already unilaterally change them and private insurance just follows anyway.

The main thing that a single payer solves is that it covers every single person and eliminates medical bankruptcies and lets people get healthcare without worrying about deductibles and networks and surprise billing. That's probably the most pressing issue among your average patient.

 

[TwistedTea]

You make it sound as pharm companies and insurance companies are inherently bad. They do serve a purpose believe it or not. Without them there would be no medicine and no coverage. Not saying things should change but cmon.
By your logic food and housing and transportation should be free too right? Why worry about paying bills at all.

single payer would come at a cost. A cost no one wants to talk about. It doesn’t simply alleviate medical bankruptcy. The cost comes from somewhere..... and let me tell you it’s not just rich peoples pockets.

I just don’t see how single pay = problems automatically gone. The grass is not always greener and it would come with its own devils.

 

[jambro]

We do need pharmaceutical companies I agree, but shouldn't medicare be allowed to negotiate drug prices? yes or no? this is a huge part of the savings.

insurance companies on the other hand I have no love for. I believe they provide less than 0 value and only exist to extract money out of the system. what value does an insurance company have that medicare cannot do with far less overhead, no need for profit, and 0 people making millions of dollars or thousands of people whose jobs exist solely to navigate the stupid system that the insurance companies created?

have you asked any doctor how their practice would change if all their patients were covered by medicare instead of private insurance (assuming medicare rates were adjusted to be reasonable)? all it would do is reduce the bull**** that physicians have to do to stay afloat.

and no, its not that medical bankruptcies represent some sort of unpaid necessary cost to keep our system afloat. ask any other person in another country about medical bankruptcies and they'll look at you like your insane. Most of these bankruptcies are probably coming from inflated bills that the insurance industry is responsible for anyway since hospitals/physicians cannot bill medicare less than they bill other insurance companies for, so they end up billing every CPT code at the highest possible rate in case one insurance company happens to pay out. And then if someone doesn't have insurance these are the bills they get.

 

[TwistedTea]

We do need pharmaceutical companies I agree, but shouldn't medicare be allowed to negotiate drug prices? yes or no? this is a huge part of the savings.

insurance companies on the other hand I have no love for. I believe they provide less than 0 value and only exist to extract money out of the system. what value does an insurance company have that medicare cannot do with far less overhead, no need for profit, and 0 people making millions of dollars or thousands of people whose jobs exist solely to navigate the stupid system that the insurance companies created?

have you asked any doctor how their practice would change if all their patients were covered by medicare instead of private insurance (assuming medicare rates were adjusted to be reasonable)? all it would do is reduce the bull**** that physicians have to do to stay afloat.

and no, its not that medical bankruptcies represent some sort of unpaid necessary cost to keep our system afloat. ask any other person in another country about medical bankruptcies and they'll look at you like your insane. Most of these bankruptcies are probably coming from inflated bills that the insurance industry is responsible for anyway since hospitals/physicians cannot bill medicare less than they bill other insurance companies for, so they end up billing every CPT code at the highest possible rate in case one insurance company happens to pay out. And then if someone doesn't have insurance these are the bills they get.

They might not seem as they provide value but insurance does provide value in other fields. We have no evidence that they provide no value. Otherwise this is just a list of issues to work on, not things immediately solved by single payer.
If you ask me medicine should be like other fields. The best doctors and hospitals can charge more for better care than mediocre. Ask top lawyers what they charge vs not top lawyers. Why should good docs get paid the same as bad ones? Make it more competitive.

and I think everything should be negotiable. But single payer doesn’t = automatic negotiations

 

[jambro]

health insurance is completely different from other types of insurance for many reasons (with car insurance I can buy a cheaper car, drive less, not drive, not fix my car etc)

the reason I’m tying pharmaceutical negotiation to single payer in particular is because we’ve had many establishment presidents and none of them have ever fight to allow Medicare to negotiate. This is becaus they are bribed by the pharmaceutical industry through campaign donations. And passing a single payer system is far more difficult than just Medicare negotiation, so I’m assuming if the former happens so does the latter.

the issue with your idea of better docs getting more money is that medicine isn’t black/white like other fields. And it’s necessary for the functioning of our society. It’s just not a market where unfettered capitalism works well. However, fields with more voluntary things like ophtho, derm, plastics the free market does work well, but those are unique fields

 

[TwistedTea]

health insurance is completely different from other types of insurance for many reasons (with car insurance I can buy a cheaper car, drive less, not drive, not fix my car etc)

the reason I’m tying pharmaceutical negotiation to single payer in particular is because we’ve had many establishment presidents and none of them have ever fight to allow Medicare to negotiate. This is becaus they are bribed by the pharmaceutical industry through campaign donations. And passing a single payer system is far more difficult than just Medicare negotiation, so I’m assuming if the former happens so does the latter.

the issue with your idea of better docs getting more money is that medicine isn’t black/white like other fields. And it’s necessary for the functioning of our society. It’s just not a market where unfettered capitalism works well. However, fields with more voluntary things like ophtho, derm, plastics the free market does work well, but those are unique fields

That doesn’t really make health insurance any different what you said. It’s purpose is to hedge risk.
We have no proof that bribery would stop with single payer this is an issue with government. Likely more government would not help a governmental issue as we don’t throw fire on fire to fix it (excluding controlled burns I guess)

none of those fields are black and white and you give no reason why those other fields would work better in “pay for quality” than others. Have you worked in the medical field yet? I doubt it if you think optho and DERM and plastics take a majority of cash payments and just make fat balls of cash from cosmetics/optional procedures all day.

There are several things required for a functional society, many of which are doing without everyone getting free care.

 

[jambro]

That doesn’t really make health insurance any different what you said. It’s purpose is to hedge risk.
We have no proof that bribery would stop with single payer this is an issue with government. Likely more government would not help a governmental issue as we don’t throw fire on fire to fix it (excluding controlled burns I guess)

none of those fields are black and white and you give no reason why those other fields would work better in “pay for quality” than others. Have you worked in the medical field yet? I doubt it if you think optho and DERM and plastics take a majority of cash payments and just make fat balls of cash from cosmetics/optional procedures all day.

There are several things required for a functional society, many of which are doing without everyone getting free care.

I'm saying that the pharmaceutical industries and health insurance industry contributes to politicians and so that is who our system benefits. So in the example where a single payer bill totally screws over those industries which industries are you suggesting would be the big players now? Also people who push for a single payer system want to end citizens united which makes all of these contributions possible so if that happens your point has even less standing.

Do you think that if we had no medicare or medicaid it would be easier/cheaper for people to get healthcare? I'm confused by how the crazy prices that insurance companies charge are a "government issue"

I said that in fields with more voluntary things it can work well. Specifically I am referring to the cost/accessibility of those procedures in particular. so for ophtho it would be lasik, for derm fillers and botox, for plastics boob jobs, nose jobs, etc. For all these procedures the free market works well - id argue its because those things are voluntary and people can pick and choose at their leisure (or not get these things done at all). I didn't mean to imply that the entirety of those fields are like that, and obviously most derm/plastics/ophtho practices are doing mostly non-elective things

We also do have free food (ebt cards), free healthcare (medicaid), and free money (welfare) if you are poor enough already. I like the idea of free healthy food (esp. in food deserts) as well but that's a different conversation

 

[DrNotaDr]

That doesn’t really make health insurance any different what you said. It’s purpose is to hedge risk.
We have no proof that bribery would stop with single payer this is an issue with government. Likely more government would not help a governmental issue as we don’t throw fire on fire to fix it (excluding controlled burns I guess)

none of those fields are black and white and you give no reason why those other fields would work better in “pay for quality” than others. Have you worked in the medical field yet? I doubt it if you think optho and DERM and plastics take a majority of cash payments and just make fat balls of cash from cosmetics/optional procedures all day.

There are several things required for a functional society, many of which are doing without everyone getting free care.

The entire job of a insurance company is to make profit. That profit by definition comes at the expense of their customers health. There are entire branches of these companies devoted to denying claims. It’s a sick, immoral system.

 

[TwistedTea]

The entire job of a insurance company is to make profit. That profit by definition comes at the expense of their customers health. There are entire branches of these companies devoted to denying claims. It’s a sick, immoral system.

if it did not have some use in people's lives they would likely not buy it. If you feel like insurance is not worth it then do not purchase it for yourself or family. Are there problems with insurance? yes. but Noone has stated how single payer would relieve these problems.

The entire business of foodstuffs, cars, internet, housing, etc is also profit driven. People confuse profit with problem, make the juice not worth the squeeze and you will see what a socialist society looks like.

Also, most universities are non profit but still in the business of sucking tuition dollars from students and a fat lot of help the government has been on that topic (see >1 trillion in student loans out standing).

 

[TwistedTea]

I'm saying that the pharmaceutical industries and health insurance industry contributes to politicians and so that is who our system benefits. So in the example where a single payer bill totally screws over those industries which industries are you suggesting would be the big players now? Also people who push for a single payer system want to end citizens united which makes all of these contributions possible so if that happens your point has even less standing.

Do you think that if we had no medicare or medicaid it would be easier/cheaper for people to get healthcare? I'm confused by how the crazy prices that insurance companies charge are a "government issue"

I said that in fields with more voluntary things it can work well. Specifically I am referring to the cost/accessibility of those procedures in particular. so for ophtho it would be lasik, for derm fillers and botox, for plastics boob jobs, nose jobs, etc. For all these procedures the free market works well - id argue its because those things are voluntary and people can pick and choose at their leisure (or not get these things done at all). I didn't mean to imply that the entirety of those fields are like that, and obviously most derm/plastics/ophtho practices are doing mostly non-elective things

We also do have free food (ebt cards), free healthcare (medicaid), and free money (welfare) if you are poor enough already. I like the idea of free healthy food (esp. in food deserts) as well but that's a different conversation

The lobbying and benefitting politicians was what I said was a government issue, you misread my message. Government problems are not fixed by adding more government. Fix that singular issue (lobbying to politicians) instead of turning to a single payer system. All medical care is voluntary (noone forces you into the hospital unless you are a danger to self or others) also, so those specialties are not exclusive to "less regulation"

I greatly appreciate the responses but I think we have a different world view of things. Profit is not perfect, capitalism has its flaws, but at its base state it is the best thing that has ever happened to people in history. Just read the history books, the free market is a wonderful tool when properly regulated and single pay goes against that, hence why even though i lean more left of center, I cannot go for a single payer system without at least substantial offerings in the free market for "better care".

But if you want your physician wages and healthcare dictated by a single government entity then so be it, plenty off countries have that and i hope we never get it here. Let's remove some of the anti-competitive practices our government is OK with in the current system instead of scrapping it for supposed greener grass on the M4A side.

 

[DrNotaDr]

The lobbying and benefitting politicians was what I said was a government issue, you misread my message. Government problems are not fixed by adding more government. Fix that singular issue (lobbying to politicians) instead of turning to a single payer system. All medical care is voluntary (noone forces you into the hospital unless you are a danger to self or others) also, so those specialties are not exclusive to "less regulation"

I greatly appreciate the responses but I think we have a different world view of things. Profit is not perfect, capitalism has its flaws, but at its base state it is the best thing that has ever happened to people in history. Just read the history books, the free market is a wonderful tool when properly regulated and single pay goes against that, hence why even though i lean more left of center, I cannot go for a single payer system without at least substantial offerings in the free market for "better care".

But if you want your physician wages and healthcare dictated by a single government entity then so be it, plenty off countries have that and i hope we never get it here. Let's remove some of the anti-competitive practices our government is OK with in the current system instead of scrapping it for supposed greener grass on the M4A side.

Medical care is not voluntary any more than eating food is voluntary. I hear a libertarian perspective; libertarianism cannot work, whereas socialized medicine can and does work in every country but ours.