Why Healthcare costs so much: Explained in one cartoon

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by TheTaoOfBill, Mar 18, 2012.

  1. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    [​IMG]

    Simply put: Private healthcare systems have far too much overhead to be anywhere near efficient. A single payer universal healthcare system would have one source of funding (tax money) one administrative branch to answer to (Department of Health) and none of the money would be reserved to make any company a profit.

    Healthcare costs would immediately plummet to the end user. Even with the raised taxes it would require we'd all come out of it paying less than normal. Effectively it's cheaper and it's more effective at treating diseases.

    I've already decided that if we do not have single payer healthcare by the time I'm 40 I plan on moving to a country that does. My health is to precious to risk.
     
    janpor and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Crafty

    Crafty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,439
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is a very static analysis of the situation. You ignore many of the variables that change.

    Demand and usage:
    I would say that if the government was the only payer usage of health resources would go up, as people feel like they are paying for it they might as well use it. This leads to increase prices as demand rises. Of course to offset this government starts to ration care. Do you think demand will stay constant or go up? I think people are more willing to go to the Dr. every time they are sick if they feel like they are paying for it.

    Number of providers:
    Now lets get into another area, skilled doctors, does the number of skilled doctors increase or decrease when government decides what they pay. Under our current system we see more and more physicians dropping Medicare and Medicaid patients because the government reimburses less and less. Will we see a decrease in physicians due to full on government healthcare? If so that increases costs and incurs more rationing. In effect limiting access.

    Religious hospitals:
    Now this may seem like a strange thing to bring up, but Catholic hospitals account for a lot of the healthcare in this nation. Its something like 1 in 6 patients is taken in by a Catholic hospital. Do these hospitals just give over to the government when it tries to take over? Do they go against their faith when it comes to abortion and such? Or do we see many of them close down? How does this affect things? In Wisconsin something like 30% of the people admitted to hospitals are admitted to catholic ones. Imagine if a bunch of them closed down due to government taking over?

    There are tons of other factors you don't consider. Our government is currently running deficits and you want them to take on the healthcare needs of the whole country? How much are we taxed for Medicaid and Medicare already? They spend about a trillion a year on it and have well over $60 billion in waste and fraud. Look at our education system, mostly government owned and declining steadily. Yet you trust them with your health?

    If you want my opinion, if you really cared about your health you would want less and less people between you and your Dr. Not trade insurance companies for government stooges.
     
  3. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's exactly what I do want. Less people between the patient and the doctor. That's why I support government healthcare.

    One provider. With policy rules that make sense for the patient and their health. Not rules that make sense for a bottom line.

    As for deficits it's already well known that a single payer system would shrink our deficit not grow it. This is because we're already paying to cover the debts of people who go to the ER and cannot pay for the service. Even people with insurance When you can't pay the government pays. And that increases our deficit more than single payer healthcare does.
     
  4. jor

    jor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you forgot how health insurance companies are not allowed to trade across state lines forcing there to be less competition.
     
  5. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This has already been shown not to be a major source of high healthcare costs. All it will allow is for private insurers to hide in states with less regulations. Meaning less overall care. If you want to make the healthcare system worse that's a surefire way to do it.
     
  6. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hi, Bill... here I am, a hard-core Right-wing Conservative (ostensibly, your worst political enemy), and yet I AGREE with you about "single-payer"! Too bad President Moron didn't pitch single-payer in the first place instead of this brutally unconstitutionally "mandate" that he and his majority Democrat goons shoved through in 2009.

    Here's what's going to happen in June: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court, BUT, Elena Kagan will have to recuse herself because she has a long, very visible track record as a cheerleader for Obama's "socialized medicine" scheme. By any count, that will leave the hyperlibs at least one vote short in attempting to save Obamacare. Then, with the stench of that defeat in their nostrils, it will be at least a decade before these Socialists attempt to come up with some other plan, and that's too bad, really.

    The quality of healthcare technologies, medicine, etc., in the United States is the best in the world, but it is extravagantly expensive and getting more so all the time. A single-payer system would enable everyone to enjoy substantially lower premium structures, and wouldn't it be ironic if it isn't President Romney who finally brings it into being...?
     
  7. leftlegmoderate

    leftlegmoderate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would this be an absolute take over of the entire industry and associated industries? For example, would the state take over the development and production of medications?
     
  8. jor

    jor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More competition would decrease costs.
     
  9. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're right. But it's not just costs we are looking to improve in the healthcare system. It's efficiency and quality.

    Eliminating state lines would decrease costs. But it would also decrease quality. It's not worth the VERY SMALL decrease in costs.
     
  10. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No I don't believe taking over drug companies is part of any plan. Though I do believe the medical patent system should be reformed. Bar that there is no reason a private company can't produce and sell drugs.

    Taking out the competition for drug companies would be a bad move. There needs to be a high level of inspiration to produce drugs quickly. And nothing inspires better than free market competition.
     
  11. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48

    I believe Obamacare does more good than bad. An individual mandate is required if you are going to eliminate the private health insurance companies ability to turn down people with pre existing conditions.

    Overall this plan will reduce costs without reducing quality. Which is a good thing.

    HOWEVER a single payer system would have done both more effectively.

    I am still a supporter of the president. I think Obamacare was better than nothing at all. And I don't believe single payer would have been possible to pass in the current political environment. Much more national education on the subject is needed.

    If a president Romney were to somehow get a single payer healthcare system in place he would certainly earn my vote for a 2nd term. I don't believe it will ever happen though. No republican would even attempt to do so in the current political environment.
     
  12. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eliminating state line limitations would help decrease costs. We also need to eliminate the health insurance exchanges created by ObamaCare and the complex formulas that maintain insurance costs within those exchanges at extremely high rates rather than a market created rate.
     
  13. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The system in general is way to complicated. Over the decades we've put too many bulky patches on a completely broken system. The system needs to be replaced. Not repatched.
     
  14. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the government wants to get involved in the health care game then that's fine but they should not be allowed to shut out competition and MY tax dollars should not go to support it unless I wish to be covered under the program.

    More choice is never a bad thing - neither is insurance coverage across state lines.

    That is the problem with government anything - nothing is a choice, you either participate or you are finned and or go to jail. Since the government is the huge bureaucratic mess that it is they would be less effective and eventually more expensive than going with a private plan - thus why it is never a "choice".
     
  15. leftlegmoderate

    leftlegmoderate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would we pay for our own medications, or would that be included with the care?
     
  16. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't see why it would be a problem if you want additional coverage outside of what the US government provides. Sorta like how we have social security but you can still invest in other retirement packages.

    However also like Social Security the only way it can be effective is if it is paid for. Every American must contribute. It is a free service for all Americans. Including you. If you choose not to take that service that's your choice. But as an American it is your duty to pay for the healthcare system of our nation.

    That's a duty you pay for even now. You already pay for medicare, medicaid and all healthcare related bankruptcies.

    Implementing a single payer system would mean you would actually be paying the government LESS for healthcare related costs.
     
  17. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    47,159
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where are the lawyers?


    _
     
  18. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    From what I've seen in other countries most programs cover you completely on drugs while you're in the hospital. But for prescription drugs you do need to pay. However in general income based assistance is provided if needed.
     
  19. charliedk

    charliedk New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    both systems are flawed and do not work..private or socialized it don't matter..
    gone are the good old days when being a doctor meant something..
    gone are the good old days when a patient accepted the fact that their time is up instead of being hooked up to a machine or receiving million $ surgeries just to extend their lives for 1 or 2 more years living a life of misery in a hospital or bedridden..
    it's become a money and profit factory..let's see how long we can make the poor SOB live and see all the $$$ add up..
    as a kid my folks would take me to our doctor and he'd do stitches, broken bones and most everything in his office..
    now-a-days each doctor passes the buck from one specialist to the next to one hospital to the next best hospital worried about law suits and how much they can make..
    and it's not just the doctors fault..people are such wussies now that they go to a doctor for a common cold or a little boo boo on their finger..
    people should educate themselves on how to take care of simple medical emergencies..stop stuffing yourselves with potato chips and crappy food would be a good start too..learn something about how your body works and take precautions..
    it's a mess..
     
  20. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Single payer takes profit almost completely out of the picture.
     
  21. charliedk

    charliedk New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with you to a point Bill but no matter what the system is someone will always find a way to take advantage of it for their own needs..
     
  22. Montoya

    Montoya Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,274
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I say the government should offer a single payer as an option. You can either choose a single payer system that covers everything private healthcare does or you can choose private heathcare and pay double for it. Somehow I think people would pick single payer, thus putting insurance companies out of business. "Free market" right?
     
  23. stretch351c

    stretch351c New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the government's track record of total inability to run anything efficiently, regardless of party, why do you want to let the government anywhere near healthcare?
     
  24. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It must be wonderful to be a simple liberal so that complex problems can be resolved with a simple cartoon. Of course, most of the issues were left off the single-payer side. It's makes it so much more simple for simple liberals.
     
  25. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you would like to explain to people why Single Payer is more bloated than the current private system feel free to do so. Of course you could just call liberals stupid. That's much easier. Even though most people educated in Healthcare support single payer healthcare systems. But why would we trust the experts.
     

Share This Page