Could someone explain to me this phenomenon? I struggle because I do not want to believe the easy, dehumanizing position that 'the people who do not believe what I believe are just too stupid to know I am right'.
Could someone explain to me this phenomenon? I struggle because I do not want to believe the easy, dehumanizing position that 'the people who do not believe what I believe are just too stupid to know I am right'.
How does anything about the way medical care is administered in the US work in the context of the mythical "free market"?
https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/put-chargemaster-...
It's not clear that this will have the intended effect (since insurance always pays a heavily discounted price), but I think it's a step in the right direction.
But people also firmly believe they don't want price discrimination once they're on fixed incomes, and want government to take whatever steps are necessary to pay for that.
Healthcare costs for old people is most of the game, and those are regulated. No one is willing to challenge that.
Thus, we have a market that remains too regulated for presently-allowable-competition to make a difference.
In terms of competition, the real problem is the artificially low numbers of health care workers and facilities. The Drs are limited by the low number of medical schools, etc and the number of facilities are limited by requiring Certificates of Need, etc.
First remove these barriers to entry and require transparent pricing. Then... maybe competition would result in lower prices.
>...Seven of the top 10 most profitable hospitals in the United States are nonprofit facilities that each netted more than $150 million from caring for patients in 2013,
>...The study’s main purpose was to determine the characteristics of the nation’s most profitable hospitals. They found that facilities that were part of a system were more profitable because they were able to dominate their local market, which gives them greater clout in negotiating higher prices from private insurers. It also means consumers end up paying more if their health-care provider is out of network, Anderson said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/0...
Also:
>...Nonprofit hospitals have higher profit margins than most for-profit hospitals after accounting for their tax obligations.
http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2017/04/25/the-fairy-tale-...
[1]: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.01339...
The money for these inefficiencies has to come from somewhere and that area will suffer.
And they're not just trying to change your mind. They're also working to get the support of the electorate directly.
Now imagine some of those groups had absolutely superb PR. Literally making childhood cancer sufferers healthy again.
Now imagine, like every industry that wants government influence, they hire your friends into highly paid do-nothing jobs, donate generously when you raise money for your charitable foundation, and so on.
Now imagine they're a big employer. And they've got a whole bunch of jobs. Office jobs. Highly paid high-level jobs. Well paid mid-level jobs. Jobs that employ lots of minority groups.
Now imagine that the most efficient outcome would be to shut down all the insurance companies and nationalise all the hospitals, but you don't have the political capital to deliver that, it'd make a lot of people very nervous, and you're not even sure it'd be a moral thing to do anyway. So you'll probably have to settle for a middle ground that keeps a lot of the existing middlemen fat and happy.
Now imagine, even if your reform is a huge success and goes way better than you have any right to expect, people are still going to die in hospitals, and some people are going to say some of them are your fault.
Now imagine turning a blind eye to the problem has been working just fine for the last 20 years. It'd be so easy to just let sleeping dogs lie...
Look at Obamacare. A lot of Democrats will say that this was a genuine attempt to move toward single-payer, a public option, etc. and that they simply had to make compromises to get what they got passed (a change that undoubtedly helps many people but does so with a regressive tax, and certainly doesn’t simplify anything).
they simply had to make compromises to get what they got passed
For much of that Congress, the Democrat caucus had complete control (with filibuster-proof control of the Senate); they didn't have to "compromise" with a single Republican, hence zero Republican votes.In this particular case, the notion that Medicare works at all (let alone well) is a point that about half the country will not concede because it’s one of many a shibboleth that keeps the “sides” at each other’s throats.
One half will throw a fit no matter what gets done. It would be interesting if Trump suddenly announced support for single payer Medicare for all. Republicans would think it's the best thing ever and Democrats would suddenly be against it...
Way too much blind ideology in this country. Before I came here I thought the US is a pragmatic country that gets things done but now I see that leadership can't even agree on a shared perception of reality. When you talk to right wingers or left wingers you don't even recognize that they are in the same country.
Any evidence of this? Because there is plenty of polling data to show the R camp switching positions based on who is in charge. Never seen it apply the other way.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/10/25/republica...
I think you’ve got this wrong. I think that in most cases partisanship and hero worship is a lot stronger than support for specific policies. I think you’d find that people wouldn’t change their stated views on single-payer, they’d just reframe the situation so that they can continue to love/hate Trump and blame the other side for everything they don’t like.
Look at bump stocks. I know staunch Trump supporters who have bump stocks and strongly oppose almost any form of gun control. Does Trump’s bump stock ban make them like Trump a little less? Perhaps. But it certainly doesn’t change their political affiliation in any measurable way.
Same goes for those who oppose Trump. I’m sure they agree that the bump stock ban is nice, but do you think they’re suddenly “coming around” on Trump? I doubt it.
Just look at deficits. A few years ago Obama's deficits were the number one concern. Now Trump has raised them even more and all concerns are forgotten.
Is that accurate? Sounds more like NRA propaganda to me to keep people in line.
The actual truth is both parties believe in gun control and both parties believe in the Second Amendment. One side just panders to gun owners and the NRA more than the other.
And, tbh, democrats do not hold NRA in high regard, so thinking that they always be worse on gun control sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.
I mean, I get your point, but guns does not illustrate it well.
As far as their options, it depends on what they want. If they want the complete repeal of all gun laws... no lawmaker is going to support that. Everything else is a matter of negotiation, though.
If you mean government required and subsidized, like the systems of France and Germany, which have great healthcare systems, that sounds wonderful.
If you mean single-payer healthcare, like Canada and the UK, screw that disaster.
If it was the US, my bereaved parent would not only owe thousands but they would have to be on guard to verify the accuracy of each bill, negotiate with the provider and then setup a payment plan stretching into infinity.
The US healthcare system is another area where capitalism and the 'free market' is failing the consumer.
Frankly, when I hear see someone stridently decrying socialized medicine or single-payer healthcare I wonder if their tune would change after their first medically induced bankruptcy or not being able to afford medication that would keep them alive.
Pure private like the US is just insane. It technically works but when you go in you have no idea what you're paying. Random service providers can bill you months later and there's not much you can do to stop it. Plus you have to be sure your provider is in-network and a bunch of other pointless nonsense. Finally, insurers can charge you whatever they want.
Switzerland's eliminates most of these problems. Everyone is required to have a "basic" level of cover, where "basic" is defined by the government to include basically everything medically necessary (in much more precise terms than mine). The maximum premium is fixed to be just a little over what's profitable for a well-run company but customers get to choose their deductible, up to a mandated maximum. All procedures and medications have fixed prices.
Thanks to the regulated premiums and procedure prices, you end up with everyone paying roughly the same amount for the same thing but to different people. Service providers have to send and process bills for 30 or 40 different insurers or hundreds of individual customers. Customers have to pay bills to their insurer and/or each service provider they visit.
This makes no sense to me. When everyone's paying the same amount for the same thing, it doesn't matter that there are different choices. By centralizing everything with one insurer, you can drastically reduce the paperwork for everyone. Providers send bills to one insurer. Customers pay bills to one insurer.
Why would you want to make medicare supplemental coverage illegal, or forced to be completely separate, which is a characteristic of single-payer health care (as opposed to multiple payer universal health care coverage)?
Do you have a citation for that?
>...The idea that socialized medicine would cause less medicine research and advancements, when increasingly medicine advancements are coming from countries with socialized medicine-
Can you expand on that? What medical advancements are increasingly coming from countries with socialized medicine? The usual argument is simply that since the US doesn't have the price controls on drugs, that companies make a good deal of their profits from the US market.
Just like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, the answer was staring you in the face this whole time: "socialized". You say that magic combination of "social" and any of "ist", "ism", "ized", and g-ddamn it, my Granddad didn't fight Mussolini in the war just to the let the socialists take over. I swear to $DEITY that I do not exaggerate that amongst many, the mere utterance is assumed to end the discussion.
"Well, that sounds a lot like socialism."
"Hmm, when you put it that way, I suppose we have nothing further to discuss."
It is literally the reason we didn't get socialized medicine when Truman suggested it in the 1940s, because the AMA stuck the S-word onto it at the start of the Cold War.
More annoying is that many of that ilk that I personally know would be hard-pressed to give an even basic, accurate definition of what socialism is (almost guaranteed it'll come out sounding like communism). It's as if someone many years ago said, "anything labelled 'socialism' is bad", and entire nation shrugged its shoulders and said, "okay" without ever looking up what they were on about.
Yeah that might be because “The goal of socialism is communism.”
Honestly I think it has a lot to do with the popularity of Fox News and its bias against any centrist/left policy. Also, keep in mind that the US was for decades fighting a war against communism which branded any socialist idea as evil and even going so far as to overthrow socialist governments. So, there are decades of propaganda that needs to be overcome.
In fact I think we have the millennials to thank as they grew up after the cold war and did not experience much of the propaganda that older generations did, so they are more open to policies like universal healthcare.
edit: quickly downvoted? If you disagree that's fine, but at least share what you think I've got wrong.
> "In fact I think we have the millennials to thank as they grew up after the cold war and did not experience much of the propaganda that older generations did, so they are more open to policies like universal healthcare."
So they haven't seen the negative consequences of too much government power and thus are too quick to call for government solutions.
Answering your question, I put more trust in my government than private corporations because government ostensibly works for me, and citizens get to influence the makeup of our government. (Note, I'm not American, if I lived under the US democracy I might feel differently).
I would say that if there was no government involvement, then their profit would depend on providing quality healthcare service. Right now there are so many regulations and government controls that I can't even choose between multiple providers, pitting them against each other to offer better service.
I'd actually love to purchase private insurance from another country if that was an option. Let's use globalization for good to lower healthcare costs for all. Imagine consulting with a doctor in India over an iOS app and ordering drugs from Mexico...
All of that would only be possible by removing the government from the picture.
You really trust the government to take care of you? How blind are you? The UK government wasted £12 billion of taxpayer money on an abandoned IT system.
... well, too late, because your insurance was chosen and paid for by your employer (if you have one), and your clinical decisions were made for you. Oh, and if you try to change insurers you will be denied coverage for your "pre-existing condition".
The UK is far from perfect, but it does the basics well (antibiotics, contraceptives, emergency care, insulin). And there's zero risk of it making your state worse by bankrupting you.
And for those who want faster care, private insurance is still an option. It's just that: an option. Not something that people have to desperately scramble for.
Then when you need to make a claim you discover that Company B gave a good deal because in the fine print they added exclusions that result in your claim being rejected for some arbitrary reason. So yes, in the long term the competitive landscape works as word gets out that Company B's plan is garbage, but in the short term you are forced into personal bankruptcy or a worse health outcome.
An orange is not necessarily orange.
A government with social programs is not the definition of Socialism.
Socialism is two things:
- No profit
- No private property
The consequence in 100% of historic attempts has been immense suffering. More than even the Nazis could deal out.
It’s not propaganda. Open a history book.
Regards,
A left-wing liberal who’s ancestors suffered first under Nazi occupation, and then under Communism — which is the goal of Socialism.
I've read about South & Central America's attempts to move towards the left and how after each attempt the US responded by spending millions to bring down legitimate democratic movements, or even worse installed devastating puppet right wing regimes with chilling affects that we still see today.
Regardless, my point was simply that the fear mongering against socialism bled into a fear of social welfare programs in general. If you took my comment as advocating for changing the US to socialism then I was unclear with my intent.
- society should be dog eat dog, red and tooth and claw, and that the weak and sick should merely die. Not only is that not bad, it's desirable, as the weak and sick bring down the rest and having them disappear strengthens the society / species
- the world should be every-man-for-himself, that you should be on your own, and never expect anyone to help you outside of blood relatives, or if you're lucky, charity.
- that everything must be "earned," discounting the ideas that it's society itself and all of its trappings (trade rules, police, roads, availability of skilled workers trained with public money, etc.) that's allow said money to be earned in the first place. If you don't earn it you don't deserve it, regardless of what that means for you.
- that government should simply not be in the business of providing services, period. It should exist only as a nightwatchman state that protects from "force and fraud" when it applies to domestic policies (empire building and maintenance + policies to further theocracy and political chauvinism are a big divide over spending on the right)
- taxation is theft. If one "earns" money, one should be able to keep basically all of it (minus force+fraud taxes, though ancaps don't even want that one.)
Now, mind you, this doesn't actually reflect the will of people in the US (recent poll links: https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1078510910317174785), but large parts of the right-wing establishment (many of which inhabit the Democratic party, not just the Republican one.) This includes large donors, corporations, and powerful think tanks.
One thing that has to be understood about the US, is that since its very founding, it has largely opposed redistribution (the General Welfare clause notwithstanding.) People should remember Madison:
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
I hope that perspective helps you in your future discussions. :-)