What would a "medicare-for-all" system look like?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Not now it doesn’t. But if there were more providers all vying for your service, don’t you think they’d improve? What incentive is there for a single payer program to be “better”?

Yeah that's pay-as-you-go. Basically a transparent, free market for health care, taking insurance out of the equation. We discussed that above. That would be economically efficient, unlike what we have now. In that sense it would be fine. Of course, it would also result in poor people dying of treatable illnesses. That's a question of ethics/values. Personally I think that is ****ty and wrong, but I'm not going to try and convince you of that.
 
The existence of profit is why there are insurance companies to meet the mandated need created by govt.

Profit isn’t “against outcomes”, it’s why someone is willing to do things for the same reason that ability to make money is why your coworkers show up and mine show up and why we have companies that exist to pay us.

Profit is a good thing

The govt did not create the need for insurance companies. They arose in response to a consumer need, but under the current structure they don't fulfil that need efficiently.

'Profit is a good thing' is just blanket dogma and cant with no logical thought process behind it. 'Good' and 'bad' are relative to your desired outcomes. Jeez.
 
Yeah that's pay-as-you-go. Basically a transparent, free market for health care. We discussed that above. That would be economically efficient, unlike what we have now. In that sense it would be fine. Of course, it would also result in poor people dying of treatable illnesses. That's a question of ethics/values. Personally I think that is ****ty and wrong, but I'm not going to try and convince you of that.
Or maybe, I feel like if people kept more of their wealth, they would willingly help these people. Churches and other large organizations did this far before the government was powerful enough to. Helping others should be a choice, not a necessity.

And you say that “the government tried to fix it but is inefficient”.
When is the last time the government was efficient at ANYTHING?
 
Or maybe, I feel like if people kept more of their wealth, they would willingly help these people. Churches and other large organizations did this far before the government was powerful enough to. Helping others should be a choice, not a necessity.

Probably not. Charitable giving as a proportion of income goes down the richer you are. The people who give the highest proportion of their income to charity are those making under $25,000 per year.


When is the last time the government was efficient at ANYTHING?

Lots of governments are very efficient at the provision of health care/insurance. In fact, the US government is also very efficient at the provision of health care/insurance (VA and Medicare). Medicare has 5% overhead, compared to 30% overhead for private insurance.
 
Probably not. Charitable giving as a proportion of income goes down the richer you are. The people who give the highest proportion of their income to charity are those making under $25,000 per year.




Lots of governments are very efficient at the provision of health care/insurance. In fact, the US government is also very efficient at the provision of health care/insurance (VA and Medicare). Medicare has 5% overhead, compared to 30% overhead for private insurance.
So you would like to see VA quality healthcare available for everyone?
 

Uh-huh. The chart on cancer life expectancy in that link shows the US at 73.8% average 5 y survival, a slight edge over the 2nd place Canada at 70.5%.
For that we are paying over $8K per capita as per the graph I linked above, compared to $4.5K per capita in Canada. I think my point about health care efficiency stands.
 
So you would like to see VA quality healthcare available for everyone?

Have you worked in a VA? That's Cadillac health care for Kia pricing, provided to an extremely medically needy population.

*Editing to link support:
 
Last edited:
Uh-huh. The chart on cancer life expectancy in that link shows the US at 73.8% average 5 y survival, a slight edge over the 2nd place Canada at 70.5%.
For that we are paying over $8K per capita as per the graph I linked above, compared to $4.5K per capita in Canada. I think my point about health care efficiency stands.

I thought the Canadian healthcare system overall was better than American.
 
Regardless of your position on this issue, if you think there's a "simple" solution to this problem, you're mistaken. In fact, there isn't a solution at all. There are only trade offs = any change that might "improve" the system in one area is certain to worsen it somewhere else. And, it's quite likely that we won't even agree whether some change is actually an improvement or not.

Let's take the issue of private insurance companies as an example. Private insurance companies make a profit -- as they should, they are private companies. An argument that has been made above is that we should get rid of private insurance companies to decrease the cost of healthcare. Theoretically, this is true -- if we got rid of private insurance companies and (for example) moved everyone to Medicare, health care costs would apparently go down -- we would save any money "lost" to profits, and (in general) it appears Medicare might have lower admin costs than private companies (although that is debatable). On the surface, seems like a win.

But:
1. All of those people working for the insurance companies? Their salaries are paid by those companies. All of those people lose their jobs. Sure, they might get a job in a bigger Medicare, but chances are Medicare will pay less than those private companies. All of those people will be suffering.
2. My hospital, which is relatively efficient, either just barely breaks even on Medicare, or loses money. All of our profit margin (which we use to improve care, buy new technology, etc) comes from the private market. Take that away and we are screwed -- either we will need to increase prices (at which point you lose your cost savings), or downsize / cut salaries (more pain for employees), etc.
3. If we only had one insurance company (Medicare), they could dictate prices and coverage. Would this new treatment that costs $2 million for kids with a genetic illness be covered? Would Medicare just say "We're paying you $100 for it, take it or leave it?" Who would make those decisions? The party in power which changes every few years?

There's no question that we have the most expensive health care system in the world. It's unsustainable -- if we don't change something, the system will fail. Anyone who blames the costs on one group of people -- insurance companies, hospital executive salaries, physician salaries, pharma, gov't regulations, nursing unions, etc -- is missing the point. It's none of those people's fault. It's all of our fault. Perhaps "fault" isn't the right word -- this wasn't really planned, it's developed over the years due to multiple decisions over many years. Change will be really hard because someone will lose. The best solution will probably make everyone unhappy.

Everyone likes talking about cutting "waste", since that seems to hurt no one. But all waste is someone's income. Someone always gets hurt.
 
Uh-huh. The chart on cancer life expectancy in that link shows the US at 73.8% average 5 y survival, a slight edge over the 2nd place Canada at 70.5%.
For that we are paying over $8K per capita as per the graph I linked above, compared to $4.5K per capita in Canada. I think my point about health care efficiency stands.
And if you read back, you'll see me agreeing that we aren't cost efficient compared to the others.
 
1. All of those people working for the insurance companies? Their salaries are paid by those companies. All of those people lose their jobs. Sure, they might get a job in a bigger Medicare, but chances are Medicare will pay less than those private companies. All of those people will be suffering.

Those people are bloat. They are being paid to do something that provides no benefit to anyone other than the bottom line of the insurance company. They should be retrained to do something useful. The Jayapal bill (HB1382) includes provisions for this retraining.


2. My hospital, which is relatively efficient, either just barely breaks even on Medicare, or loses money. All of our profit margin (which we use to improve care, buy new technology, etc) comes from the private market. Take that away and we are screwed -- either we will need to increase prices (at which point you lose your cost savings), or downsize / cut salaries (more pain for employees), etc.

If the hospitals cannot function on the mandated rates, the government will be forced to increase the rates or see no service available. Medicare rates are not set in stone. They are able to be low now because the hospitals make it up by gouging the private insurance companies. If everyone had the same coverage that would no longer be an option.


3. If we only had one insurance company (Medicare), they could dictate prices and coverage. Would this new treatment that costs $2 million for kids with a genetic illness be covered? Would Medicare just say "We're paying you $100 for it, take it or leave it?" Who would make those decisions? The party in power which changes every few years?

See above. If the answer from the health care industry is 'we leave it,' Medicare will have to raise reimbursements. Maybe the gov't will have to sell a nuclear warhead or two. Sob.
 
If by 'better' you mean 'cheaper and with approximately equivalent or better outcomes' then yes, I'd agree with that.
So you’re telling me that correlation does not imply causation and that there are probably a multitude of factors seeing as American life expectancy is still longer? Hmmmm
 
I strongly disagree with the VA being Cadillac health care. That’s why I still have my own private insurance, even though I am a veteran. I got tired of having an appointment 6 months in advance, only to get there for them to tell me that I actually needed to see someone else, only to have another appointment made for it to be cancelled...

No thanks
 
OK, man. If I have my choice between SFVA or PAVA and Valley Medical Center, I know where I'm going.

The problem with the VA system is the ridiculous levels of inconsistency as the saying "if you've been to 1 VA, you've been to 1 VA" reflects. I've worked/rotated through 5 or 6 now, and out of those I'd tell my patients to drive right past at least 3 of them and go to the next hospital. The scary part is that two of those are "5-star" hospitals and I have some horror stories from those hospitals that would appall any decent physician.
 
OK, man. If I have my choice between SFVA or PAVA and Valley Medical Center, I know where I'm going.
Oh wow, so 2 VAs are better than 1 hospital I've never heard of.

This clearly means the VA is just awesome.
 
Yeah the VA is surely better than many hospitals. Probably just a coincidence that many of them are also charity hospitals. Wouldn’t want to go to any of them either.
 
The govt did not create the need for insurance companies. They arose in response to a consumer need, but under the current structure they don't fulfil that need efficiently.

'Profit is a good thing' is just blanket dogma and cant with no logical thought process behind it. 'Good' and 'bad' are relative to your desired outcomes. Jeez.
You’re literally factually wrong here.

Employer based health insurance took off during govt enforced wage freezes to allow the military to staff their ranks.

And the govt is now enforcing employers provide it and individuals buy it....
 
You’re literally factually wrong here.

Employer based health insurance took off during govt enforced wage freezes to allow the military to staff their ranks.

And the govt is now enforcing employers provide it and individuals buy it....

No, that is not the origin of health insurance, it's just when employers started offering health insurance as a fringe benefit to offset the depressed wages.
 
No, that is not the origin of health insurance, it's just when employers started offering health insurance as a fringe benefit to offset the depressed wages.
He didn't say it was the origin of health insurance. He was responding to you saying this:
The govt did not create the need for insurance companies.
Which it did. Less than 10% of people had insurance before WW2. By the end, that number was 50%.
 
He didn't say it was the origin of health insurance. He was responding to you saying this:

Which it did. Less than 10% of people had insurance before WW2. By the end, that number was 50%.

I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Yes insurance used to be sparsely used (people just got sick and died if they couldn't pay for care) and now is widespread. Yes employer provision of health insurance, in response to depressed wages, helped it spread. That's fine. What is the relevance to the original question of whether private, for-profit insurance is an economically efficient way to support the provision of health care?
 
So basically you believe in redistribution of wealth, not only from income but health level? Middle class healthy people who are only barely making it should also join the ranks of the poor?
 
I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Yes insurance used to be sparsely used (people just got sick and died if they couldn't pay for care) and now is widespread. Yes employer provision of health insurance, in response to depressed wages, helped it spread. That's fine. What is the relevance to the original question of whether private, for-profit insurance is an economically efficient way to support the provision of health care?
Insurance is not really an efficient way to provide for basic stuff, it’s great for catastrophic.

The important part of the equation you are missing is that it should be voluntary and allowed to exist in many forms so people can price out what they want
 
Not now it doesn’t. But if there were more providers all vying for your service, don’t you think they’d improve? What incentive is there for a single payer program to be “better”?

Then , please explain why we are paying three times in premiums and copay, deductibles compared to all other countries where government runs the healthcare? Why are we paying 5 to 10 times for drugs compared to other countries? Are you determined to be blind or live on another planet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Because, we don’t have a free healthcare market in America. It’s going to become worse and worse if it becomes more heavily regulated.

Like I said before- correlation does not imply causation. We also have a much more diverse heterogenous population. I can see why in a more homogenous much smaller country socialized medicine would “work”. (Not that I would agree with it even then).

Those countries have feudal origins and have had more socialistic foundings. It kind of fell into place for them.
 
Insurance is not really an efficient way to provide for basic stuff, it’s great for catastrophic.

The important part of the equation you are missing is that it should be voluntary and allowed to exist in many forms so people can price out what they want

I completely agree that the insurance model in general makes most sense for catastrophic needs.

However, voluntary health insurance is fiscally unsustainable because that would result in people buying it only when they need it.

If you drive a car, you are legally required to have insurance. Otherwise people would avoid paying for insurance until they got in an accident, then quickly buy a policy before they reported it. This would sink the insurance company pretty quickly.

Same deal applies to health insurance. If it isn't mandated, healthy people won't buy it, and then the numbers don't work.
 
Because, we don’t have a free healthcare market in America. It’s going to become worse and worse if it becomes more heavily regulated.

Like I said before- correlation does not imply causation. We also have a much more diverse heterogenous population.

The above is hilarious. Makes ridiculous prediction, notices on own that said prediction flies in the face of all existing examples, quickly defends pre-emptively by claiming we shouldn't reason by reference to existing examples at all 😆

I can see why in a more homogeneous much smaller country socialized medicine would “work”. (Not that I would agree with it even then).

This is handwaving. Please explain in detail why population heterogeneity should have any effect on the economics of health care provision.

Those countries have feudal origins and have had more socialistic foundings. It kind of fell into place for them.

Feudal is the exact opposite of socialistic.

Also no policy overhaul 'falls into place.' Each country with a national health care plan studied the issue and came up with a solution. Taiwan has a great system which was implemented in 1995 and actually modeled after Medicare.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree that the insurance model in general makes most sense for catastrophic needs.

However, voluntary health insurance is fiscally unsustainable because that would result in people buying it only when they need it.

If you drive a car, you are legally required to have insurance. Otherwise people would avoid paying for insurance until they got in an accident, then quickly buy a policy before they reported it. This would sink the insurance company pretty quickly.

Same deal applies to health insurance. If it isn't mandated, healthy people won't buy it, and then the numbers don't work.
That's not why car insurance is mandatory. Most of the minimum requirements for insurance are about harm you do to others with your car. It's so that if you hit someone else their repair/hospitals bills are covered.
 
That's not why car insurance is mandatory. Most of the minimum requirements for insurance are about harm you do to others with your car. It's so that if you hit someone else their repair/hospitals bills are covered.

Sure, true and also not particularly relevant to the economic argument.

By the way, do you feel that being mandated to buy car insurance is an unacceptable trespass on your personal freedom?
 
Sure, true and also not particularly relevant to the economic argument.

By the way, do you feel that being mandated to buy car insurance is an unacceptable trespass on your personal freedom?
Nope because you have the option of not having a car. Lots of Americans don't. In the same vein, you are not required by the government to have homeowners insurance. This makes sense as your house is not going to jump out and injure strangers.

Back to the original argument, it would be very easy to prevent people from buying insurance for an injury/illness they just had. Waiting period on new policies. Lots of employers do that already, where you have to work for the company for 30 days or more before you can buy into the company insurance policy.
 
Nope because you have the option of not having a car. Lots of Americans don't. In the same vein, you are not required by the government to have homeowners insurance. This makes sense as your house is not going to jump out and injure strangers.

Back to the original argument, it would be very easy to prevent people from buying insurance for an injury/illness they just had. Waiting period on new policies. Lots of employers do that already, where you have to work for the company for 30 days or more before you can buy into the company insurance policy.

That work for cars but not for sick people because of the chronic nature of many diseases. Hence the pre-existing conditions nightmare.
 
That work for cars but not for sick people because of the chronic nature of many diseases. Hence the pre-existing conditions nightmare.
Yes but if health insurance went back to more catastrophic care, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. The most common chronic diseases can be managed fairly cheaply.
 
Because, we don’t have a free healthcare market in America. It’s going to become worse and worse if it becomes more heavily regulated.

Like I said before- correlation does not imply causation. We also have a much more diverse heterogenous population. I can see why in a more homogenous much smaller country socialized medicine would “work”. (Not that I would agree with it even then).

Those countries have feudal origins and have had more socialistic foundings. It kind of fell into place for them.

There is zero regulation in this country. If there is any regulation, it was written on behalf of the private insurance for their own benefit. One such stupid regulation is that Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices. Does this help increase the price or decrease? Another outrageous regulation is that we cannot import drugs. Why did they do this? For the benefit of drug companies or the public? Do not blame the government for everything. There is no government in this country that works for the people.

Large population means that the price should be lower not higher, because the risk pool is bigger. Heterogeneous population has got nothing to do with high healthcare cost. It just shows your hatred for non white population. Non white people live all over the world, but only in USA , the healthcare cost is astronomically high. Canada population is as heterogeneous as USA, how the cost is way lower there? Think independently before accepting whatever said by the mouthpieces of private insurance companies to brainwash you.

Feudal countries? LOL. All your wild imaginations are not truth. It is foolish to believe we are the only free country in the world. Take this, this is 2019 and not 1200. All countries are free in the world today. In fact we are the only feudal country in the world. We are under the thump of feudalist greedy ruthless private corporations but have been brainwashed by them to believe that it is the SO CALLED FREEDOM. That’s why people like you defend them vigorously even though it is not in your best interest or benefit.
 
Or maybe, I feel like if people kept more of their wealth, they would willingly help these people.
Of all the libertarian arguments on healthcare, this has to be the most naïve and unfounded. I can appreciate well thought out libertarian logic but this is just silly.

Completely free market healthcare necessitates (maybe not completely but in all likelihood) that non-wealthy people who don’t have some sort of catastrophic insurance will die of treatable illnesses. You can say, "well that's their own fault for not taking personal responsibility and having insurance in the first place, I shouldn't be forced to pay for their care because of their lack of foresight", but don't engage in wishful thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Of all the libertarian arguments on healthcare, this has to be the most naïve and unfounded. I can appreciate well thought out libertarian logic but this is just silly.

Completely free market healthcare necessitates (maybe not completely but in all likelihood) that non-wealthy people who don’t have some sort of catastrophic insurance will die of treatable illnesses. You can say, "well that's their own fault for not taking personal responsibility and having insurance in the first place, I shouldn't be forced to pay for their care because of their lack of foresight", but don't engage in wishful thinking.

I think more specifically, that member is drastically oversimplifying and distorting these libertarian views to present a naive and inaccurate argument on the matter. Which is why i don't pay much attention to them because these undermine their point. There are good, well supported arguments made on both sides which is why they are well worth looking into especially if the members making them have strong experience and familiarity.
 
Completely false.

Seriously, are you trolling us?

Yes, there is no regulation that was enacted FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE. Seriously, that’s all you had to say on my entire post? Seriously if you believe that the government works for the benefit of the people in this country and it restraints the rude behavior of the corporations, you are in denial.

Also as I mentioned so many times, regulations are not bad for the businesses or the economy as brainwashed by the mouthpieces of the corporations. If people complain about them, they are not doing honest business. How the world will be if there are no criminal or traffic laws. Do we complain about them? Then why are we obsessively against business regulations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
I think more specifically, that member is drastically oversimplifying and distorting these libertarian views to present a naive and inaccurate argument on the matter. Which is why i don't pay much attention to them because these undermine their point. There are good, well supported arguments made on both sides which is why they are well worth looking into especially if the members making them have strong experience and familiarity.
Agreed.
 
Completely false.

Seriously, are you trolling us?
Since you asked if I am trolling, I ask you to answer me directly. Do you believe that if we revoked all the regulations that you blame for all problems, the private entities give cover all the population, with no deductible and copays at the same price or cheaper than the other countries where government runs healthcare? Please don’t sidestep , just say yes or no.
 
Of all the libertarian arguments on healthcare, this has to be the most naïve and unfounded. I can appreciate well thought out libertarian logic but this is just silly.

Completely free market healthcare necessitates (maybe not completely but in all likelihood) that non-wealthy people who don’t have some sort of catastrophic insurance will die of treatable illnesses. You can say, "well that's their own fault for not taking personal responsibility and having insurance in the first place, I shouldn't be forced to pay for their care because of their lack of foresight", but don't engage in wishful thinking.
No, I just feel that humans aren’t that devoid of compassion that we need to force them. But when it comes down to it, yes I believe your healthcare is your own responsibility. When it comes to freedom, I fall somewhere between Minarchism and classical liberal. No one has the right to take from me to give to someone else.

If someone dies because of that, it’s the unfortunate reality. I would prefer that than we all be enslaved by debt. But so I think the free market would come up with a way to help many people? Definitely.

I wonder how much money is dumped on people with no quality of life that will never improve. Only have worsening decubitus ulcers and infections, with the family never to visit, but demand that they be a full code.
 

Attachments

  • 43B42D4F-0C4A-4F3A-816A-5AF8726E2428.jpeg
    43B42D4F-0C4A-4F3A-816A-5AF8726E2428.jpeg
    125.7 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
Since you asked if I am trolling, I ask you to answer me directly. Do you believe that if we revoked all the regulations that you blame for all problems, the private entities give cover all the population, with no deductible and copays at the same price or cheaper than the other countries where government runs healthcare? Please don’t sidestep , just say yes or no.
English isn't your first language, is it?

If I understand that mess of grammar, I think the answer is no.
 
Yes, there is no regulation that was enacted FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE.
Again, completely false.

The ACA rule that 80% of insurance company income must be paid out as claims proves that.

Also the CMS rule that says if you accept Medicare you can't charge patients for something Medicare will cover outside of Medicare.
 
English isn't your first language, is it?

If I understand that mess of grammar, I think the answer is no.
How does it matter if English is my fourth or fifth language?

If your answer is NO, then please stop blaming the government and regulation for all the issues of the world.
 
Again, completely false.

The ACA rule that 80% of insurance company income must be paid out as claims proves that.

Also the CMS rule that says if you accept Medicare you can't charge patients for something Medicare will cover outside of Medicare.

What is wrong with those regulations? Will you be happy if the regulation says that the insurance company can keep 100% of what it collects? ACA is only a fraction of insurance market. Which regulation causes employer based health insurance to skyrocket?
 
What is wrong with those regulations? Will you be happy if the regulation says that the insurance company can keep 100% of what it collects? ACA is only a fraction of insurance market. Which regulation causes employer based health insurance to skyrocket?
I made no claim one way or the other about the worth of those regulations. I merely pointed out that there do exist regulations that were designed for the benefit of the people in direct contradiction to your blanket statement.
 
Top