DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes, it's still conjecture. Your claim that what is the case in the UK now, will be the case if the US makes it's way to a UK-style system. And, you make the assumption that the offers by the Government are going to be accepted by the companies that make the medical equipment. You could only be working under the assumption that there is enough profit in those companies now to absorb a price reduction like that. I highly doubt it. Business won't be able to survive if their costs are higher than what they can sell their products for.
You really don't get it do you??
The actual price difference between cost of product and the final price to the US market is HUGE!!
How do you think these companies make sales to single-payer systems and still make a profit on those products?
Its all in the numbers and the buying power of the single-payer systems to dictate the price.
That box of pills you pay £140 for costs 10 cents or less to make. The rest of the price is all profits down the line by everyone involved with it. That's why, even with the cost of additional transport, import duties and the like, those companies can still sell to single-payer systems at 50 cents and still make a profit.
So when a single-payer system buys them at 50 cents, that's the cost - not the $140 the company is selling them for in the US.
And they are still making a profit. Sure, they aren't making $139.90 a box for a few hundred million; but when they sell to a whole country on a bulk-buy scheme, they are selling billions of them on a fixed-price contract. That means they know their income and profits for the next X years.
And the whole gamut of costs on everything to do with the healthcare is organised like that.
You guys are ripped-off from beginning to end because of greedy profiteering by insurance companies.
It's not assumption or conjecture.
It is assumption and conjecture. You're assuming there is enough profit in the system to absorb the drastic price cap. Unless you have proof of that, it's conjecture.
quote:
We have shown you that these mega-price cuts happen in all the single-payer systems.
Not just one or two - ALL of them! And by a wide margn too.
Even with the Australian model (which is 50/50), those costs are dramatically cut.
If the US law-makers did the job properly and swept away the dependency on the insurance model, those prices WILL tumble.
You have shown no price cuts. Zero. All you have pointed out, is current lower costs. I have asked over and over, for proof of price reductions. You can't count compare current prices in the UK to current prices in the US and use that as proof. You can, however, use prices right before a national system was adopted and prices after the national system was adopted. The only proof anyone has shown, is that the rate of the inflation of the medical costs is lower than that of the US.
quote:
Like my earlier example with the tin of beans and the dynamite, why are you asserting that the outcome will be different just because it's the US??
We cannot quote any more proof than all other single-payer systems as an example to show you how it works and explain where the savings are made and how it's all funded.
We cannot show you how it'll work in the US because the US haven't done it yet - that would indeed be guesswork.
But, as I said earlier, *IF* they do it right and chose a working model, there is no reason to assume that the model wouldn't work in exactly the same way.
Where have you shown that prices have dropped? Adopting a national system now doesn't automatically put us in the same situations as countries with a national system. The way your models have worked, as far as I can tell, is that inflation of medical costs are lower than in the US, which explains the difference in costs.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It sure can operate at a loss. Let's say NI brings in 100 units. The UK decides to allocate 110 units from the general tax bucket to the NHS. The NHS spends 108 units. Since the NHS spent less than it's allocation, it, technically, is running a surplus. However, if you compare the NHS spending to the NI revenues, there is a net 8 unit deficit.
And as I keep repeating.... there's no such thing as a "loss" if it's government funded.
It isn't a commercial enterprise. It doesn't have to make a profit to continue.
The only way it ever runs at a loss is when the tax pot runs dry and they can't fund it any more.
And the only way that can happen is if the vast majority of people aren't being taxed enough and there is no money in the pot for anything. And guess what the government would do? Yep, they would raise the taxes.
But, as you have been shown umpteen times now - the tax burden on the individual would be miniscule.
At one time decades ago, the NI was 7%. It rose to 9% and in recent years has actually been cut to 8.6%.
That's a real-life example of how it works.
We have newer and better equipped hospitals which account for the rise in costs.
Even so, the US costs during that same period for the same stuff has risen by far more than that.
Is the UK operating with a budget surplus? If not, then at least part of that deficit is due to NI not bringing in enough revenues to cover the NHS allocation. That means that program is not self-supporting.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
You need to get your head out of the individualism, profiteering, insurance-based model.
Think of it as a single, non-profit company where it is backed by government-funded tax payers.
This is probably why you just can't visualise the concept.
Right. I can't visualize the concept. 
You are stuck in a commercial model.
A single-payer systems doesn't work like that.
How many examples do you need to see?
I'm not just advocating the UK model - there are many out there to choose from and all are different.
Every single single-payer system in the world is waay cheaper than the US.
Everyone around the world is buying meds and equipment from the same tiny handful of companies.
From what I've seen here and looked into, the UK system sure seems like it's a very effective system. As far as national systems go, I'm leaning towards that as my favorite. That might just be due to knowing more about it, but that's my leaning.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread