|
DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/21/2013 4:30:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You don't get it. Why does insurance cost so much here? Um, because the individual costs of services and procedures is so high. If those costs dropped across the board, insurance costs would drop across the board.
Insurance costs would be wiped OFF the board.
I sometimes wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse DS.
We aren't privvy to the internal billing and there's nowhere on the net where these figures are accurately laid open for everyone to see.
Can you not follow a line of reasoning? And, I'm the one being obtuse?!?
Are you denying that the reason insurance costs so much here is because the individual costs of services and procedures are so high? I know you love to demonize profits, but, how much profits are there within insurance? Even if it's huge, the costs of insurance premiums will drop if the individual costs of procedures and services drop.
Imagine some entrepreneur going in and accepting lower profits and lower wages in an effort to reduce premiums. How would that entrepreneur not succeed? Yet, no one is stepping in to do that. I don't know why, to be honest, but I'm sure there is some reason.
quote:
If the cost of your services and proceedures were capped by being paid for by a universal system, then they wouldn't be a runaway train wreck like the insurance companies are charging in the US.
You're right. But, it might also have a deleterious effect on quality and/or availability. What happens when the cost of providing services or procedures is higher than the cap?
quote:
Monopoly bulk-buying is also a key to negotiating lower prices. I've given several examples of that already.
Just like gravity - you can only judge by consequence. We don't have bills for you to examine and compare!
Look at every universal system in the world - it's shitloads cheaper than anything in the US.
And what we mean by cheaper is cheaper to the end-user, the patient.
As explained before, healthcare isn't a business run by profits; so it costs the government a scoop of cash from the coffers, big deal.
As long as it doesn't come from the pockets of the individual American is what counts - not profitability.
Really? So, if the UK was spending 40%GDP on health care, it would still be "cheaper" than that in the US as long as the "end user" costs were lower?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Federal government is already spending around 10% GDP in health care costs. That covers about a third of the US Citizenry. UK's NI is 8.6% (according to freedomdwarf). No one can show that care costs drop by moving to a national care system. If care costs don't drop, whether the Federal government is footing the bill or it's split private/public, we're still going to be spending a shit ton more than anyone else.
In physical numbers, yes, because there are more of you than anyone else!
But as a percentage, it shouldn't be any more than any other country.
Should or shouldn't means jack shit. The Federal government is already[] spending more than the UK. That's simply "public" spend, and not private spend. How will the Federal government, assuming the bill paying, reduce spend, as a %GDP, from where it is now when it's taking on 2x more consumers? The UK's public spend is 8.6%, and covers everyone and nearly all costs (you still have private insurance). The US Federal government is already spending 10% while only covering about a third of the population.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, NHS isn't actually meeting all the demands of the marketplace, then.
As I have explained to you countless times now DS, the benefits of going private are minimal; but some of the advantages could be a quicker time slot or a private room.
And, countless times, I have pointed out that if the consumer wants these things, then there is demand for those things. Regardless of whether or not the benefits of private insurance are minimal or massive, that there is private insurance, is proof that the public coverage doesn't provide all the Market's demands. In the case of the UK, private insurance benefits are small, but they are still there.
quote:
The NHS meets the demands of the marketplace. But if one particular person wants something different then they call on their private insurance: A) if they have any; B) if it offers anything better than the NHS; C) if it doesn't cost more in the long run; D) actually offers what they are looking for.
If someone wants something the NHS doesn't provide, then the NHS isn't meeting all the demands of the Market. That isn't to say that it isn't meeting nearly all the demands, just that it isn't meeting them all.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Did your ex's employer make a profit?
As I've said several times DS, suppliers are normal companies just like any others and they do make a profit.
Why do you continually muddy the waters with this irrelevance?
I'm not muddying the waters. FFS, I'm trying to clear the waters. So, there is profit in health care, then, no? Who gets to make a profit in the health care industry in the UK?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
@DesideriScuri What would happen if the NHS couldn't find a Dr. willing to work for less than $300k?
Thanks for ignoring the question completely.
She answered the question.
Doctors know what they are going to be earning if they work for the NHS.
It's no different to training as a truck driver. A private company might pay $20/hr whereas working for the government might only be $15/hr but guaranteed 30 hours minimum a week. You choose where you want to work.
It's not a crystal ball having to work out what the charges are and the profits are and what he could take as salary.
Just like any other job - it's a fixed salary.
If they don't want to work for the NHS, they work privately or go abroad. It's as simple as that.
So, what happens if the NHS finds zero doctors willing to work for the wage the NHS offers? What does the NHS do, then?
|
|
|
|
