[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is another completely ahistorical, made-up axiom repeated like catechism by conservatives. There’s no profit motive in the Europe’s single-payer health systems, yet they’re more efficient than ours.
[/quote]
Nearly Bankrupt =/= Effecient
You lack understanding of the term efficient.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
dhickey wrote:With profit motive, comes efficiency.
This is another completely ahistorical, made-up axiom repeated like catechism by conservatives. There’s no profit motive in the Europe’s single-payer health systems, yet they’re more efficient than ours.
[/quote]
You know that some of us actually live in those countries and actually have to deal with those systems?
And you need to define “efficiency” before you can measure it.
So far he US is leading in cancer survival rates and leading in research. Without the US system we could not steal new drugs and treatments from anywhere and would already be broke.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
borrek wrote:
So who in the health care system is actually making a profit? Hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies all claim to be scraping the barrel for nickels.
The regulators. They provide nothing and yet still get paid for their “services”.
Regulators? Could you be more specific by what you mean?[/quote]
People who suck out tax money from productive people. The regulators. They produce nothing and still get paid. I would call that a very handsome profit.
Goddam government does not understand, that just like credit card companies, the health insurance industry will always find a way to make their money. Somehow, some way, they will make it happen for them.
Somewhat recently, my health insurance rescinded their payment for a surgery I had 2 years ago. Yes, 2 years after I had the surgery and paid my portion of it, the insurance company took their payment back and left me with the bill, around $20k. I filed an appeal, and had to do my homework to win. I had to submit my appeal to a neutral (more like neutered) party, the Dept of Managed Health Care in California. They would make the final call, and I won. The best part was calling the insurance and faxing the notice of winning the appeal to the insurance, I could hear them pouting. I kept my cool, while the lady mumbles “…this is such bullshit…” I replied to her, “No lady, the problem is that you tried this shit with the wrong guy. I know you do this to other people, but don’t try it with me.”
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is another completely ahistorical, made-up axiom repeated like catechism by conservatives. There’s no profit motive in the Europe’s single-payer health systems, yet they’re more efficient than ours.
Nearly Bankrupt =/= Effecient
You lack understanding of the term efficient.
[/quote]
You lack understanding of any aspect of the situation. They spend less per capita and get equal or better outcomes. Being nearly bankrupt has nothing to do with it. If they spend much less and are still in rough shape financially, imitating us will only make the problem much worse.
Which has what to do with relying on private insurance companies?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Goddam government does not understand, that just like credit card companies, the health insurance industry will always find a way to make their money. Somehow, some way, they will make it happen for them.[/quote]
No, they do understand. That’s why many want to put the health insurance industry out of business and institute a single-payer system.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:So far he US is leading in cancer survival rates and leading in research. Without the US system we could not steal new drugs and treatments from anywhere and would already be broke.
Which has what to do with relying on private insurance companies?
[/quote]
Why do you think that happens in the US and nowhere else.
The little pathetic competition you have left is the driving force for innovation when it comes to medicine.
Because we have the biggest pharmaceutical companies.
You didn’t answer my question, but whatever.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:So far he US is leading in cancer survival rates and leading in research. Without the US system we could not steal new drugs and treatments from anywhere and would already be broke.
Which has what to do with relying on private insurance companies?
[/quote]
Well a single payer system somehow has to allocate resources.
In a free market there are what we call “luxury” goods that can only be purchased by a financial elite.
This elite however makes it worthwhile for developers to pour money into R&D.
Once they have worked out the kinks and know how to mass produce it it becomes dirt cheap and everyone can afford it.
Examples: cell phones, computers, electricity.
If you take that out, a system based on rationing will hardly finance new and innovative drugs.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Why do you think that happens in the US and nowhere else.
Because we have the biggest pharmaceutical companies.
You didn’t answer my question, but whatever.
[/quote]
And why do you think these companies are in the US?
That is hardly God given?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is another completely ahistorical, made-up axiom repeated like catechism by conservatives. There’s no profit motive in the Europe’s single-payer health systems, yet they’re more efficient than ours.
Nearly Bankrupt =/= Effecient
You lack understanding of the term efficient.
You lack understanding of any aspect of the situation. They spend less per capita and get equal or better outcomes. Being nearly bankrupt has nothing to do with it. If they spend much less and are still in rough shape financially, imitating us will only make the problem much worse.
[/quote]
This is expressly untrue when you compare apples to apples. For a given specific condition, patients here do as good or better. You forgot the deference in healthcare spending can come from people living an unhealthy lifestyle. Turns out its more of a commentary on Americans being fat and lazy.
I could say I spend less money and have better health outcomes than a guy with cancer. That does not mean that the coverage I receive is better or more efficient.
You miss correlation vs. causation a lot, I’d recommend reading over that one.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Goddam government does not understand, that just like credit card companies, the health insurance industry will always find a way to make their money. Somehow, some way, they will make it happen for them.
No, they do understand. That’s why many want to put the health insurance industry out of business and institute a single-payer system.
[/quote]
Just remember that who ever pays the bill gets to make the decisions. Who do want making decisions concerning your health care?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is another completely ahistorical, made-up axiom repeated like catechism by conservatives. There’s no profit motive in the Europe’s single-payer health systems, yet they’re more efficient than ours.
Nearly Bankrupt =/= Effecient
You lack understanding of the term efficient.
You lack understanding of any aspect of the situation. They spend less per capita and get equal or better outcomes. Being nearly bankrupt has nothing to do with it. If they spend much less and are still in rough shape financially, imitating us will only make the problem much worse.
[/quote]
Again, you have no idea what efficient means. By its very definition, something that is run by the government cannot be efficient. It has no check. You have no way of knowing if a government program is efficient because you cannot see demand or supply. There are no market cues.
With government programs, there will INEVITABLY be shortages OR surpluses. When you have either, efficient you are not.
How much they spend is irrelevant, because the people aren’t spending shit. The government is spending, and it isn’t spending its own money. You cannot rely on those numbers to give a level of efficiency, because they are essentially meaningless in this aspect. They do not reflect a willingness of producers to supply or a willingness of consumers to demand.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I could say I spend less money and have better health outcomes than a guy with cancer. That does not mean that the coverage I receive is better or more efficient.[/quote]
This is another great analogy. Two thumbs up!