Why can't the market deliver healthcare at a low cost?

Itd be cheap if we weren't paying for those who dont pay for it themselves.

 

What's included in the cost analysis?

 

So you dont know what was included in the cost analysis?

 

Come and live in Australia to learn how a Gov’t health care system can save billions.
(Hint, it’s called bulk buying power)

 

Is there something about the word total you don't understand?
But I'll tell you what.
Why don't you pick a study from any reputable source and go thru it point by point and show us what's wrong with it and how much difference it makes to the 2 measurements.

 

Medicare pays a portion of the bill.

 

I am content here.

 

That argument doesn't hold up when you take total spending and divide it by total population.

 

Because total spending includes people who dont contribute.

Why are taxes so high?

Because half the country doesnt pay them, yet still reap the benefits of everyone else.

 

That is not entirely accurate. Those who don't contribute to federal income taxes still contribute in regards to other taxes. They contribute to social security and medicare trust funds. There is also state and local income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes.
Roughly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money. The other half doesn't pay taxes because of special provisions in the tax code that benefit certain taxpayers, notably the elderly and working families with children. For example, the tax code excludes a portion of Social Security income and gives larger standard deductions and tax credits to the elderly.

 

We will always pay for them. Hospitals can’t turn away patients in emergencies. Those who can’t pay, have their bills absorbed by the hospital and they pass it on to everyone else.

Single payer solves that problem.

 

So much is cast in an ideological framework, and ideologues clash and flail their pom-poms for one belief system or another.

Pragmatism impartially concerns itself with what demonstrably works best.

Eliminating the needless economic inefficiencies of multiple duplications - exorbitant executive salaries, payrolls, agency commissions, profit margins, advertising and marketing costs, etc., etc., etc., whilst creating the largest, most stable, and inclusive risk pool - "Everybody!" as Trump promised to include in his "Something Terrific!" plan "at lower cost!" - has been validated by all advanced democratic nations that provide quality medical coverage - decidedly superior to the US in several significant metrics - at a cost that is around half that of the US.

Standardization of data processing is also a major cost cutter that eliminates the burden of medical providers assailed by a multitude of insurers, each with its own demands. Why divert medical providers from practicing medicine? Of course, relieving American employers of the bureaucratic burden of administering plans now imposed upon them by the State and heavily subsidized by the taxpayer relieves them of a handicap that diverts from their capitalistic pursuits.

Why listen to advocates of airy-fairy dogma when there is ample, consistent, empirical data that clearly establishes the superior approach?

 

The human body is a little different than a tv. Health care used to be a product of the free market, the cost of premiums skyrocketed
and people were refused health care due to previous conditions.

 

First, by what criteria? Second, I'm not suggesting keeping our current system. I'm suggesting reforming our current system to make it less government controlled, regulated and corrupted. We don't have a free market system today because there are so many government restrictions, mandates and regulations interfering with healthcare provision, health insurance, diet and lifestyle. Less government and more direct exchange between patients and doctors would be far better than single payer or the current government controlled "private" system.

 

Why is that not a problem in any other country?

 

Why isn't that a problem in any other country?

 

Access to care, quality of care and cost of care.

Healthcare isn’t a commodity like a tv or washing machine. It can’t operate in a free market. Consumers have zero choice. They can’t shop around for cost. Have a heart attack? You’re going to the closest ER and paying whatever they charge.

This is why for profit systems don’t work. And why single payer is proven superior.

 

It's the new math.
Canada spends a total of 253 billion to cover everyone of their 37 million, while we spend 3.5 trillion covering 320 million.

 

You think the government won't control every aspect of the transaction when they're the ones paying? a couple of years ago England's NHS decided that they were no longer going to offer cardiac ablations because the wait lists were too long. Your "compromise" is to take a system heavily damaged by government interference and make government the de facto owner of it. Single payer may be superior on paper by some metrics but if you need a cardiac ablation (in the English system) you may view it less favorably.

As long as you can opt out of the government system and not be taxed for it I have no objection, but if I have to pay for crap government insurance and then pay again for better private care, that's a deal breaker.

Thanks, you make my point for me. The current system is awash in government granted limits on competition, government encouraged obfuscation of pricing, government influences that have cut the patient out of the deal by incentivizing insurance companies and employers to provide insurance that isn't necessarily in the interest of the patient/employee, etc.. Government is what makes the current system so bad. Giving government more influence will just exacerbate the problems.

No, it doesn't. Empowering the individual, the person that actually uses the good, to pay his own way, choose his own provider, and hold the provider accountable if they don't provide the goods purchased will do more to insure quality care than any government regulation.

The problems you see in the health care industry are the result of government intervention, they are the only entity that has the power to enact laws and force obedience, and they are the ones that have created the system we have today by doing a terrible job of regulating and a great job of selling influence and legislating in the interest of the industry. Incidently, they're also primarily responsible for the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases in the U.S. today. The USDA recommendation to eat a low fat, high carbohydrate diet has been instrumental in upwards of 60 percent of the population being diabetic or pre-diabetic.

Exactly why there should be separation of government and healthcare. I don't think anyone is suggesting keeping our current system of government corrupted healthcare/insurance. I certainly am not advocating that. A direct primary care clinic coupled with a high deductible insurance plan for catastrophic health events would provide lower cost healthcare without involving the corrupting influence of the government, and leave the person buying the services in control of what he is buying and how much he is paying.

No. They'll make sure the system benefits them, which may be the worst possible option for anyone else. That's probably why congress wasn't subject to the ACA.

Efficiency as defined by the payer is inevitably going to be very different than efficiency as defined by the patient. I was waiting for an appointment with a GI doc recently and a person on Medicare came in for an appointment. Government "efficiency" may be aimed at lowering cost at the expense of quality of care, increased wait times or the disallowing of options, as in the NHA cardiac ablation case mentioned above.

This is why I'm against single payer. Government demonstrates their incompetence continuously and I'm convinced the outcome of a government takeover of the healthcare industry would be disastrous for the people. The free market has proven to be extremely effective in providing every kind of product that is allowed to be sold in a free market. It is doing a good job of going around the current healthcare system where hundreds of direct pay clinics are springing up around the country to answer the problem created by the government corrupted healthcare/health insurance system.

I doubt you can come up with a place or product where the free market hasn't worked well, except in cases where there has been government interference.

 

Nonsense comment about efficiency. An input output approach is adopted, naturally including quality measures (e.g. multiple outputs are used, from number of operations to reduced amenable mortality). The British system is clearly more efficient, ensuring both mortality and morbidity gains.

 

So you would be okay if private people under 65 and business were allowed to buy Medicare?

 

The English NHS is replete with stories of restrictions of the type of care offered, long wait lists for many procedures, patients left for hours or days without treatment. The may have control of cost but if you're going to demonstrate that their system is superior you'll have to show it without using government generated data, as they have a significant conflict of interest. Government data showing the efficiency of a government program is worse than worthless.

Yes it is a commodity, a good, exactly like any other good.

Yes it can, and in many cases does, operate very well in a free market.

Consumers have limited choice in the current government corrupted system that allows prices to be obfuscated and where the person receiving the service isn't the one paying for it but in a relative free market that removes the government interference, consumers would have the kind of options enjoyed in every other relatively free market. The food market today has millions of options because it is a relatively free market. Healthcare would have similar variety if it wasn't being controlled and damaged by government influence and corruption.

I'm shopping for a primary care clinic right now. I've found a couple of good options in the area I'm looking. I would have a lot more options if my criteria were more tolerant of government created bureaucracy and cost.

Again, this is in the current government controlled model. When I want to use my cell phone I just use it without regard for whether I'm in an area covered by my carrier. Sometimes when I call I know I'm using Verizon or ATT infrastructure even though my service is with T-Mobile. I can do that without having to pay additional fees because in the relatively free market of cell phone service, the companies have made deals with each other to allow sharing infrastructure so that the customer has a better experience. There is no reason that wouldn't work with healthcare as well. In a free market I could go to the emergency room of my choice or the closest one, and my account with my healthcare provider would cover the service regardless of whether it was in their network or not. The only reason that hasn't been implemented today in healthcare is government intervention and corruption.

The free market, for profit systems work in every other market for every other good that is sold. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that single payer is superior in any way. Most of the data I've seen is severely tainted as it comes from the same government entities running the system. Further, it makes no logical sense that a government bureaucrat or politician would do a better job of deciding what care an individual should have and how much they should pay than the individual himself. Logic dictates that the individual will do a better job of addressing his own wants and needs than any other person or entity so anything proving single payer to be superior must discount the satisfaction of the individual that actually received the service allowed or defined by a government entity or bureaucrat.

 

As long as it was on the free market and Medicare wasn't funded by tax dollars, go for it. That is, there would have to be a level playing field between Medicare and the non-governmental alternatives.

I'd like to see any government department or agency have to compete with private, for profit alternatives without the use of taxation or use of regulatory force to give themselves an edge over the competition. If they can't compete in a free market under the same rules as every other participant in that market they should be replaced by better performing alternatives.

 

Plus free markets and free trade do not exist when excessives tariffs are created.

 

All anecdotal. And we have the same issues here. The fact remains, single payer systems are better in every category. And FYI, the NHS isn’t single payer.

It is not, as I’ve shown.

It can’t and doesn’t, by definition.

Already addressed this.

We aren’t talking about routine well visits to a PCP. We are talking about life saving (EXPENSIVE) treatments.

Addressed this as well.

Yes and no. But you’ve outlined why it doesn’t work in healthcare. And that’s is because it isn’t a commodity.

Ignoring the data, or hand waiving it away without actually presenting your own studies, doesn’t make a valid argument.