By writing it into the law. If we wanna get Bernie social for a second you just state “Current average cost/benefit ratio is X, after Obamacare, must stay under 1.1X”
My costs have gone up less over the past four years than they had before (I’m in WA). I think it was an increase of about $2/month this year over last.
Finally! You started writing for a REAL news agency instead of that fake MSM stuff. How long have you been on the job for The Onion? Keep up the scoops!
3 Likes
This is wrong on so many levels. The government has no business mandating any of this. If you want that much control just go full commy single payer.
2 Likes
There’s nothing to “get” … the dude’s a genius at brain surgery not being the HUD secretary.
There’s arguably no one better to drill into your brain b/c that’s what he’s been doing and studying and focusing on for however long - fuckin’ decades.
He’s new to politics … yea, he’s not going to be able to convey what he’s saying on a level that’s relate-able to most people, including you and me. What he needs is better people around him who can understand half the shit he’s trying to say and be able to mold it into something that makes sense to just about anyone else.
He’s a smart dude and I’m sure he thinks what he was trying to say made sense, but he needs to bounce that shit off of people who aren’t afraid to say “Ben, buddy, I don’t get what you’re saying here, but whatever it is, it sounds pretty fuckin’ crazy”
4 Likes
Agree, pfury.
The more insidious things that he did, however (and this is where Trump is just like most Politicians) is:
-
Giving wrong reasons and wrong answers for real problems. (e.g. the impact of Technological Advances and the American desire for low-cost goods) on the loss of High Paying Manufacturing Jobs.
-
Promising what he most certainly can’t deliver…but promise it anyway. (The return of High-Paying Manufacturing Jobs in large numbers, as companies are rapidly moving more and more to almost completely automated manufacturing processes). The most important person in most plants is becoming the IT person…not the foreman or the welder.
-
Providing affordable Health Care for everyone. (Tentative plans are already being called “Trumpcare” and “Obamacare Lite”)…and again; I didn’t think those two shits Pelosi and Shumer had it in them…but Trump is finding out that these two are damn formidable Politicians that are out for Trump’s balls on a Platter. They already had signs out yesterday that said “…Making American SICK again…” when the GOP “plan”? was unveiled.
-
Promising everything that everyone wants…while also reducing taxes…and paying for it all with the “fairy dust” of “improving the economy”.
Maybe Trump will be “The One” who can and will do it all.
We’ll see.
1 Like
So… the tax dollars will be coming from where?
Tbh it depends on what “bracket” you think healthcare belongs in. If you think it belongs with utilities, it’s not wrong on pretty much any level as the vast majority of people will agree profit regulation with utilities is very important.
Sorry, my crabby libertarian leanings were taking over for a second. Every time the government distorts a market bad things happen. Then the progressives (dem/rep) argue they just haven’t been allowed to intervene enough yet. Just one more intervention will fix it, trust us.
\rant
Health insurance is only a thing because of government salary controls in WW2. Companies couldn’t compete for people by offering them more money so they offered health benefits, and a monster was born.
The price for drugs in the US is way higher than in the rest of the world because the FDA lets that happen. It’s a crime to buy a BP drug from Britain where it’s 1/3 the cost because reasons.
Further back than that the AMA was formed to make it harder to become a doctor. Doctors didn’t feel they were making enough so they formed a trade group and lobbied the government to close down medical schools and limit the number of doctors, decreasing supply and increasing prices (wages) for doctors.
Anyone who has had to use their insurance to pay for medical services knows how incredibly screwed up this whole system is. You go in and get services that you have no idea about the costs because they aren’t posted. Then they bill insurance who “negotiates” with the provider, doesn’t pay anything because deductibles… then bills you a month later.
I have a crazy idea. Providers can post their prices for their services. Consumers can shop on quality/price and pay for services rendered. Like every market for every other consumer service on earth. Cut out insurance entirely. The billions in premiums saved should more than cover the costs for catastrophic illnesses. And when consumers start shopping for services just watch the prices from hospitals, doctors, drugs etc… come down.
While we’re at it we could stop being the fattest, most sedentary and overmedicated country on earth. That might actually bend the cost curve down. But that would require self reliance and responsibility, and nobody can get elected with that platform.
/rant
2 Likes
Except:
-
There is massive information asymmetry in healthcare, to the point where there is essentially no such thing as an informed healthcare consumer. For example, a consumer can’t bring herself up to speed re the pros and cons of various cancer treatments the same way she can about which toaster is best. Thus, the consumer has no way to accurately assess the quality/price of a potential service.
-
If you render healthcare delivery “like every market for every other consumer service,” you obviate the ethics that currently oblige physicians to put pt welfare first. When you buy a car, it is understood that the relationship between the buyer and the salesman is adversarial–he is going to try and charge you as much as possible for as little as possible, and you’re going to try and pay as little as possible for as much as possible. Do you really want the same dynamic in play when you see your doctor? It would be utterly toxic.
-
Healthcare decisions are often highly charged emotionally–literally life-and-death. This puts the consumer at a distinct disadvantage (and the ‘seller’ at an enormous advantage). Further, there is also a very significant time constraint on the delivery of healthcare. Uber charges ‘peak hour rates’ when demand is high; likewise, should a trauma surgeon be able to charge ‘peak rates’ when demand is high; eg, when one’s dying child is brought into the ER after a car accident?
-
Most people could probably afford basic primary care under the system you propose. However, anything beyond that would be utterly out of reach financially. I don’t care how much one deregulates the healthcare market; the price of ICU care, open-heart surgery, organ transplant, etc, will never be something any but the wealthiest among us can afford out-of-pocket.
/counterrant
4 Likes
Excellent post, ED.
(To number 4…we should add 1) NICU care 2) cancer treatments and 3) End-of-Life Care…all extremely expensive treatments that not only almost everyone expects and demands…they demand the “latest and greatest” drugs and Technologies…)
1 Like
Have to largely agree with ED on this one–information asymmetry is a very real and very huge hole to dig out of. I’m a researcher and I wouldn’t trust myself to figure out the pros/cons adequately–legalese and chemistry are 2 entirely different languages.
That said BG has some good points–the FDA ban on international drug purchases is essentially a ridiculously high tariff. It has not improved purchasing power for consumers. It needs to go and it needed to go a decade or more ago.
The fundamental problem is cost, not coverage. Obamacare failed on that badly IMO but the new GoP repeal plan fails just as spectacularly. Markets hate uncertainty more than almost anything.
If they don’t come up with a REALLY well thought out plan, at this point it would probably be less damaging to let Obamacare stand sadly.
3 Likes
This was all pretty much spot on. The main thing to remember, is that when you treat anything like a business, someone is getting screwed. When you apply that to life and death things like healthcare, the overwhelming firepower ends up in the providers corner.
As soon as you take away the collective bargaining power granted by insurance companies, people will start dropping like flies. Insurance companies may be evil AF, but they’re beyond necessary if the goal is less dead people.
As someone with 2 kids that spent time in the NICU, I was genuinely horrified to look at the invoice of their stays prior to submitting to insurance.
1 Like
Huh?
2 Likes
Operating on a profit margin by default means the charge is higher than it needs to be to “break even.” My comparison was meant to be in a “socialist vs free market” type scenario. Looking back I didn’t explain that.
That doesn’t mean someone is “getting screwed”. Unless you’re talking about something very specific and I’m just being dense?
I thin this is only true because health insurance globally completely misses the mark. Why do we use insurance to pay for routine check-ups? It makes no sense. Insurance has a specific purpose and =/= health care. That disconnect should be where the focus is and where I think we could actually find a solution.
1 Like
I agree here in principle, but the real question is how are you going to turn back the clock successfully so many decades? And, is it even going to be advisable givien how much the US economy, tax laws, and world at large have changed since then? As Beans is fond of saying whenever the old “1950s corporations…rich people…paid xx% taxes” talking point comes up, the economy and tax law now is COMPLETELY different than in the 50s.
1 Like
In a social vs free market scenario, the profits are in excess of what’s needed to break even, therefore charging above break even is increasing costs to the consumer. Maybe “getting screwed” is too harsh of language, but with the price tags on anything/everything medical, it sure feels like getting screwed.