8 ms·

How long will we Americans submit to these rent-seeking vampire insurance companies? Single-payer now, please.

wernercd 3y ago
So the answer to "rent seeking vampire insurance companies" is a rent seeking vampire government agency? No thank you. The answer to government created problems isn't a government created department. All you have to do is look at all of history to see the results of increased government power. Look at the lies of the unaffordable care act. look at the fact that things the government promises as "free" become unaffordable and worse.
- jackblemming 3y ago
  So what’s your solution then?
  - wernercd 3y ago
    Free market options with reasonable government regulations. What we had when this country had great healthcare options. You know... the stuff that was replaced with "Keep your Doctor", "keep your plan", "save $2500 a year" and other lies used to pass the unaffordable care act (and similar). There's a reason "Free Healthcare" can only pass with lies - and it's because government options/UHC/etc are lies for those who don't look at... well... history.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      The ACA was a travesty. But let's not forget that it was the only thing that really had any hope of passing, thanks to one political party. Funnily enough, speaking of lies and kool-aid, when you talk of ObamaCare to supporters of that political party, they are vehemently opposed. "What if, instead of ObamaCare, there was, say, an Affordable Care Act that did X, Y and Z?" (where X, Y and Z were actual features of the ACA) "Oh, that would be much better! I'd love that!"
  - jcampbell1 3y ago
    Medicaid for all, free markets for those who hate queues.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  I'm very anti government / anti bureaucracy. But in this case it is hard to argue with results. The European system is simply more efficient at delivering healthcare. Here's a really long and detailed report showing why I'm right: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthcare%20systems%20and%20services/our%20insights/accounting%20for%20the%20cost%20of%20us%20health%20care/mgi_accounting_for_cost_of_us_health_care_full_report.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthc... But you don't need to worry, it's politically impossible to get rid of the healthcare industrial complex which is 5x the size of the more frequently cited military industrial complex.
dzink 3y ago
Imagine any single one of those companies being the single payer insurance you are forced into. They (government included) become far worse. Rationing care, deciding who lives or does, underpaying doctors and nurses till the best ones quit and the remaining have any care burned out of them. That’s what’s happened in other countries and regions and every time there is a surge or a more complicated care you and loved ones are left to die or deprived of care options.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  Exactly why the entire system should be nationalized instead of outsourced. Further, nationalized healthcare promotes political engagement on a basis of material necessities that politicians must be accountable for.
  - DougN7 3y ago
    I’m not sure about that any more either. Read about the NHS in the UK - sounds like it is a dumpster fire and people are dying.
    - cogman10 3y ago
      The dumpster fire is happening because the conservative government there is running it into the ground by cutting funding at every turn possible and closing down hospitals. And even then, I've experienced NHS care and it's 1000% better than the experience I've had with american care. It's not perfect by any means, but it's insane how much better it is than what we have here.
      - gustavus 3y ago
        I've heard this narrative over and over again yet every time I look at it the NHS budget has been consistently increasing year over year for a long time.
        xkekjrktllss 3y ago
fallingknife 3y ago
We'll never be rid of it. It's politically impossible to get rid of. And I don't mean "political" as in D vs R. The amount of money we spend on healthcare in excess of the OECD average is more than we spend on the military. 10% ish of that is the entire yearly profit of the healthcare industry. The other 90% is raw inefficiency. And where does that 90% go? Mostly to salaries. Eliminate our inefficient system, and you eliminate millions of middle class jobs. No politician will do it. They may talk about it and campaign on it knowing it won't happen. But they will never pull the trigger because it would be political suicide. Also, if you want to know more than you ever needed to about the US healthcare system and why it is so expensive I highly recommend this report: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthcare%20systems%20and%20services/our%20insights/accounting%20for%20the%20cost%20of%20us%20health%20care/mgi_accounting_for_cost_of_us_health_care_full_report.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthc...
- cogman10 3y ago
  While I agree with you on this bleak outcome, it's more that it's a progressive vs conservative issue. Progressives make up a minority of the democrat party and 0 of the republican party. The only way to really change this is voting for progressives when possible, though it's hard to convince others that this is what you need to do. If you are in a blue state, vote in the primaries for the progressive candidates. If you are in red states, that's voting for democrats in general and the most centrist republicans in the primary. The absolute worst thing to do is to not vote and let the most conservative candidates run wild.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    This is not a D vs R / lib vs con issue. It is not a progressive vs centrist Democrat issue either. It's a healthcare industrial complex issue. The US spends 16.6% of GDP on healthcare. The OECD average is 9.7%. (https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA). That 6.9% difference is $1.5 trillion! That's 2x defense spending! That 6.9% of GP is supporting millions of jobs, and to remove an inefficiency like that would put them all out of work. It is not possible to do that in a democracy.
lxm 3y ago
With USDA captured by agricultural interests, and FDA by pharmaceutical lobby, what’s to prevent the regulatory capture of this new single-payer agency?
- orange-mentor 3y ago
  Health _insurance_ would ideally become a market that simply ceases to exist. It's a uniquely pathological case of market failure. I've got no love for drug company lobbyists, but drug companies do actually manufacture real things. Health insurance companies are different. Once it becomes a government benefit, there are no more lobbyists. There is no market actor to lobby on behalf of, because the market ceases to exist.
  - lxm 3y ago
    The regulatory capture would be not by health insurers, but by healthcare providers, who are the final recipients of the healthcare spending anyways.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
I've lived with Swedish, German and now Czech healthcare in addition to American (with very good health insurance). I'd choose any of them over the American system. I find other Americans' fear of change to such a terrible and expensive system very confusing.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Similar. UK, then Australia, now the US. With "platinum" healthcare, my out of pocket for dealing with an (admittedly complex) kidney stone was $8,000. For nine days hospital stay for gout (oof) in Australia, I paid $38 out of pocket... because I wanted premium TV channels.

So the answer to "rent seeking vampire insurance companies" is a rent seeking vampire government agency? No thank you. The answer to government created problems isn't a government created department. All you have to do is look at all of history to see the results of increased government power. Look at the lies of the unaffordable care act. look at the fact that things the government promises as "free" become unaffordable and worse.

jackblemming 3y ago
So what’s your solution then?
- wernercd 3y ago
  Free market options with reasonable government regulations. What we had when this country had great healthcare options. You know... the stuff that was replaced with "Keep your Doctor", "keep your plan", "save $2500 a year" and other lies used to pass the unaffordable care act (and similar). There's a reason "Free Healthcare" can only pass with lies - and it's because government options/UHC/etc are lies for those who don't look at... well... history.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    The ACA was a travesty. But let's not forget that it was the only thing that really had any hope of passing, thanks to one political party. Funnily enough, speaking of lies and kool-aid, when you talk of ObamaCare to supporters of that political party, they are vehemently opposed. "What if, instead of ObamaCare, there was, say, an Affordable Care Act that did X, Y and Z?" (where X, Y and Z were actual features of the ACA) "Oh, that would be much better! I'd love that!"
- jcampbell1 3y ago
  Medicaid for all, free markets for those who hate queues.
fallingknife 3y ago
I'm very anti government / anti bureaucracy. But in this case it is hard to argue with results. The European system is simply more efficient at delivering healthcare. Here's a really long and detailed report showing why I'm right: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthcare%20systems%20and%20services/our%20insights/accounting%20for%20the%20cost%20of%20us%20health%20care/mgi_accounting_for_cost_of_us_health_care_full_report.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthc... But you don't need to worry, it's politically impossible to get rid of the healthcare industrial complex which is 5x the size of the more frequently cited military industrial complex.

dzink 3y ago

Imagine any single one of those companies being the single payer insurance you are forced into. They (government included) become far worse. Rationing care, deciding who lives or does, underpaying doctors and nurses till the best ones quit and the remaining have any care burned out of them. That’s what’s happened in other countries and regions and every time there is a surge or a more complicated care you and loved ones are left to die or deprived of care options.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
Exactly why the entire system should be nationalized instead of outsourced. Further, nationalized healthcare promotes political engagement on a basis of material necessities that politicians must be accountable for.
- DougN7 3y ago
  I’m not sure about that any more either. Read about the NHS in the UK - sounds like it is a dumpster fire and people are dying.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    The dumpster fire is happening because the conservative government there is running it into the ground by cutting funding at every turn possible and closing down hospitals. And even then, I've experienced NHS care and it's 1000% better than the experience I've had with american care. It's not perfect by any means, but it's insane how much better it is than what we have here.
    - gustavus 3y ago
      I've heard this narrative over and over again yet every time I look at it the NHS budget has been consistently increasing year over year for a long time.
      - xkekjrktllss 3y ago

fallingknife 3y ago

We'll never be rid of it. It's politically impossible to get rid of. And I don't mean "political" as in D vs R. The amount of money we spend on healthcare in excess of the OECD average is more than we spend on the military. 10% ish of that is the entire yearly profit of the healthcare industry. The other 90% is raw inefficiency. And where does that 90% go? Mostly to salaries. Eliminate our inefficient system, and you eliminate millions of middle class jobs. No politician will do it. They may talk about it and campaign on it knowing it won't happen. But they will never pull the trigger because it would be political suicide. Also, if you want to know more than you ever needed to about the US healthcare system and why it is so expensive I highly recommend this report: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthcare%20systems%20and%20services/our%20insights/accounting%20for%20the%20cost%20of%20us%20health%20care/mgi_accounting_for_cost_of_us_health_care_full_report.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/healthc...

cogman10 3y ago
While I agree with you on this bleak outcome, it's more that it's a progressive vs conservative issue. Progressives make up a minority of the democrat party and 0 of the republican party. The only way to really change this is voting for progressives when possible, though it's hard to convince others that this is what you need to do. If you are in a blue state, vote in the primaries for the progressive candidates. If you are in red states, that's voting for democrats in general and the most centrist republicans in the primary. The absolute worst thing to do is to not vote and let the most conservative candidates run wild.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  This is not a D vs R / lib vs con issue. It is not a progressive vs centrist Democrat issue either. It's a healthcare industrial complex issue. The US spends 16.6% of GDP on healthcare. The OECD average is 9.7%. (https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA). That 6.9% difference is $1.5 trillion! That's 2x defense spending! That 6.9% of GP is supporting millions of jobs, and to remove an inefficiency like that would put them all out of work. It is not possible to do that in a democracy.

lxm 3y ago

With USDA captured by agricultural interests, and FDA by pharmaceutical lobby, what’s to prevent the regulatory capture of this new single-payer agency?

orange-mentor 3y ago
Health _insurance_ would ideally become a market that simply ceases to exist. It's a uniquely pathological case of market failure. I've got no love for drug company lobbyists, but drug companies do actually manufacture real things. Health insurance companies are different. Once it becomes a government benefit, there are no more lobbyists. There is no market actor to lobby on behalf of, because the market ceases to exist.
- lxm 3y ago
  The regulatory capture would be not by health insurers, but by healthcare providers, who are the final recipients of the healthcare spending anyways.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

I've lived with Swedish, German and now Czech healthcare in addition to American (with very good health insurance). I'd choose any of them over the American system. I find other Americans' fear of change to such a terrible and expensive system very confusing.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Similar. UK, then Australia, now the US. With "platinum" healthcare, my out of pocket for dealing with an (admittedly complex) kidney stone was $8,000. For nine days hospital stay for gout (oof) in Australia, I paid $38 out of pocket... because I wanted premium TV channels.