DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I have tried to explain it to you many times Desi.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that.
But you are constantly disputing where those cost savings come from.
I dispute that the US will see spending drop simply by changing systems.
And I have given you dozens of examples in multiple threads of where massive savings are made when insurance companies are not involved and when the spending power of a whole country produce economies of scale.
Economies of scale are indisputable facts regardless of where it is applied, including healthcare.
You refuse to believe this yet it is proven everywhere there is any single-payer system in operation.
Again, you are assuming it's going to work that same way in the US. We are starting where we are, not where the countries with single payer are. We aren't going to see 50% reductions in spending simply by switching over. It's just not going to happen. Structurally, the UK and the US are not the same.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven.
UK 1948 - The government unleased the NHS system.
Medical costs plummeted and everyone was covered no matter who you were.
No more profiteering by private doctors that only the rich could afford.
Cite please.
I have also given you plenty of cites to prove my point as well as personal examples.
You have never - and no one has - given any citations showing that changing to a universal health care model lowered costs; never.
quote:
Before the NHS was created in 1948, only the affluent could afford to see a doctor or pay for effective medicine.
Here's 2 more picked at random -
From Star Medical: The National Health Service has grown to become the world’s largest publicly funded health service since its launch in 1948. You could argue it’s the most cost-effective healthcare system in the world in terms of the extent of care it provides, and while its difficulties are widely documented, it’s also internationally renowned as a system for quality healthcare delivery.
Probably not a biased piece..... 
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/oecd-reviews-of-health-care-quality-united-kingdom-2016-9789264239487-en.htmquote:
The UK as a whole likely puts more energy into health care quality improvement initiatives than any other country in the world, and as a result has many innovative policies of international repute. Yet despite this, the quality of health care in the UK is no better than average.
quote:
From Ecenomics Online: Wanless recommended that the current system, based on general taxation, should continue because it achieved the right balance between equity and efficiency.
The report was particularly critical of private insurance, regarding a system based on private insurance as:
1) Inequitable - unfair on the less well-off.
2) Having high administration costs
3) No incentive for cost control - note the problem of third-party payment.
The Wanless report basically identified that private insurance was not as cost-effective as publicly-funded systems.
Who is arguing that private insurance is as cost-effective as publicly-funded systems?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best.
My best guess is that it's considerably LESS than 50% of what a typical US citizen would pay.
There are many examples of where a socialised healthcare system caps costs that the US rip-off people.
It's typically 50% lower %GDP aggregate spending, isn't it?
The UK spends less than most EU countries on healthcare as %GDP.
The WHO puts costs per day bed (excluding drugs & diagnostics) at over $1,000/day.
A typical day bed in NHS hospitals are just £400/day (about $500).
That metric means jack shit to this discussion. That would be like our discussing different types of ice cream, and my going on and on about the ice cream toppings I prefer.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
4. Where are the profits in the US health care system?
With the insurance companies.
Insurance companies are required, by current law, to spend 80% - at a minimum - of premium revenues directly towards care. If an insurance company had no other costs, outside of covered care - no utilities, no staff, no physical assets, etc. - the most profit they could see is 20%. That doesn't get us to 50% savings.
We've had this argument before.
The cost of care in the US is a lot higher than elsewhere so that 80% minimum requirement actually buys you less care than elsewhere.
When that cost, in itself, is a lot lower, that's where you'll gain your savings.
And of course, no profits to account for either.
You said the profits are in the insurance companies. I pointed out that there isn't all that much profit - 20% max, as long as there are $0 costs outside of covered care spending. Now, you say it's because the cost of care (services, procedures, medications, etc.) are too high. Crazy thing is, I was critical of Obamacare's entire premise - making insurance more affordable. I pointed out that lowering the cost of care would lower the cost of insurance (aka "making it more affordable"). If the cost of care in the US was similar to that of Germany (I use Germany because I have anecdotal data from a very good friend of mine who worked in Germany and required some medical services.), more people would be able to afford to pay for care without insurance, and the cost of insurance would be lower.
Before you can lower costs, however, there has to be profits that can be squeezed out. Where are the profits? Obviously, if we're talking cost of care, that effectively leaves insurance companies out of the answer.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens.
Why would they need authority to do it Desi??
Just introduce it and for those that quailfy or pay into it - let them receive the benefits of the system.
People will soon realise just how much better it is than insurance-based systems.
That's not how the political system is supposed to work in the US. Any Constitutionality question would be moot if all that had to be done was introduce it. The US system sees all authorities existing within the individual, unless authorities were granted to government. The US Constitution was a compact between the People and the States granting authorities to a Federal Government. It didn't grant all authority to the Federal Government, no matter how an Administration acts. Unless provision of care was an authority granted through the Constitution, it isn't supposed to be allowed to do it.
So you are telling me that the US government isn't allowed to offer anything to the people??
That's crap.
The Federal Government is only supposed to operate within the authorities it was granted by the US Constitution. Period. Provision of health care - or paying for the provision of health care - wasn't an authority granted by the US Constitution, thus the need - in my opinion - for a Constitutional Amendment.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
As for the californian system... sounds to me like a parallel insurance-based system; it has all the hallmarks of one.
In single-payer systems, you don't "claim" anything and it doesn't exclude people from using other systems if they so choose.
It's not exactly parallel. The way I read the legislation, any benefits or services "Healthy California" (that's what the legislation calls it) covers won't be allowed to be covered by other insurance.
quote:
This bill would prohibit health care service plans and health insurers from offering health benefits or covering any service for which coverage is offered to individuals under the program, except as provided.
So, the choice would be cash or Healthy California for anything HC covers. For everything else, it's cash or private insurance.
And as I said earlier, social healthcare doesn't stop anyone claiming on their own insurance policy.
Of course, that also means they couldn't use HC for their treatment as they'd be using their own provider.
But a true single-payer system doesn't prohibit private plans like HC seems to be doing.
So it seems that HC is indeed, nothing more than a fudged insurance-based system as I suspected.
A fudged insurance-based system? It's a single-payer system, where the single-payer is the State of California.
Huff and puff all you want, FD. It won't bother me.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again now: I like how the UK's NHS is set up, but for that system to happen in the US, the Federal Government is going to have to take over an awful lot of care facilities.
_____________________________
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: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care - 
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