I asked about this earlier, and was told the “problem” is capitalism.
You’re welcome.
Partly. For profit insurance companies are a net negative burden on the system by their rent seeking and additional expenses via administration and advertising.
Nobody wants single payer, or nobody wants what I described? I was making a joke about how that’s a crap name, but we’ll use it because it sounds better that government run health care.
Do you know the difference between an elastic and an inelastic demand?
Nope. I’ll look it up later, I suddenly became busy, so I’ll pick this up later.
Look it up and you will see that however Capitalism is great for a lot of things… there are some things where profit motive serve to increase human misery.
What you described.
And single payer isn’t government run healthcare. It’s goverment run insurance. Hospitals and providers are still private.
Remember that part of Atlas Shrugged where all of the doctors quit because a public option?
2 Likes
In fairness, capitalism is always the elephant in the room.
I’ve been keeping up with this thread, although not posting in it much. Good discussion.
1 Like
I’m not sure that’s any better, but okay, and my point still stands. Single payer sounds better than government run insurance. Give things a different name and suddenly sound better.
I’ll look it up later, but one could argue that’s always the case with capitalism. That’s argument for socialism, no? And all of this is at the heart if most political discussions, in that how much of the force of government do we use to make life fair, and in turn reduce misery?
The argument isn’t about fairness, because life isn’t fair.
We can work to reduce human misery though, especially when that human misery exists because of profit motive.
I will also posit this to you to think over.
Out of all of the OECD countries, we do not have single payer yet we spend twice what the next country does on health care and we are incapable of providing even the most basic services to all of our citizenry.
Can one make the argument that our health care is twice as good? We pay twice as much… so it should be.
So strip out all of the thoughts about what is and isn’t “fair” and look at it as a purely economic problem.
Is the consumer getting what we pay for or are we paying too much for worse results?
I still haven’t had time to look up the other stuff, but let me address this.
If you attribute profit motive to human misery and seek to eliminate or reduce the latter by addressing the former through government action, you are absolutely trying to balance the scales in the fairness department.
In regard to what you posted about our expenditure versus other countries, I would need a lot more data to convince me single payer would be better service for a lesser cost based simply on that comparison.
Instead of comparison, focus strictly on our country. As I understand the complaint, we have people in this country that can’t afford health care (this after Obamacare and all), or can’t afford the proper coverage to cover all of their needs. The fan favorite pick to solve all of this is single payer, and according to you is a cheaper route, to boot. Now, I really can’t wrap my head around how increasing demand quite heartily, while letting the government run it somehow ends with us also seeing a great cost reduction. Perhaps you can explain it to me. How would it work exactly?
I don’t understand the American healthcare system, how can you not view health as a right.
Doctors in Canada are not forced to take client they operate private practices, they freely choose who they serve.
Are you under the same opinion of the police, and firefighters?
in Canada it work like this.
If a doctor view that you need something, then government will pay for it.
if a doctor doesn’t think you need something, then your private insurance will pay for it.
at no point have I ever been denied healthcare because it would cost to much money
are those claims being rejected by a doctor because they view them as nonessential to your health? or are they being rejected by some dude in a office who can’t let the total expensive surpass “X”
