Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.
I don’t have an alt. @DerekJohnson please verify this.
Edit: I had a well known alt. I forgot the password. You know what it was.
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.
Far better to pile on with a bunch of useful idiots right?
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
That I agree with. One reason our health costs have exploded is actually the result of better medical care. Better care means people live longer and this require more medical care. And as Americans we spend a lot of money caring for people that are in a vegetative state or close to it. People get on the government teet at 65 for medical and can live on that for 20-30 years with exponentially higher costs. While producing nothing and not paying for much of the expense. (Tho you could argue they paid into the system for 40 years and that covers the cost).
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
It’s also important to acknowledge what defines a rich country.
Replying to your own alt account. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.
I don’t have an alt. @DerekJohnson please verify this.
Edit: I had a well known alt. I forgot the password. You know what it was.
Your denial includes an admission that your denial is a lie. Welcome to Trump’s America.
Imagine that.... Total costs are the same but 100% of Americans are covered. Sounds like a better deal to me.
100% coverage doesn't mean it's good coverage.
From the article “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”
The article goes on to admit that there could be "other" associated costs ex. Drug innovation.
And again, rosy estimates.
Even if it's essentially cost neutral it seems the preference would be for people to self determine their consumption rather than a federal bureaucrat.
I'm pretty sure people's health determines their consumption and it's mostly not voluntary. Does anyone decide to get cancer or remove a gall bladder?
That being said, there are sometimes where there's a choice. Has anyone found an insurance company decide on the most expensive option even tho it's the most practical? No they force you to the cheaper option.
I see your point but you'd actually be surprised how variable health care demand can be. It has a high correlation to wealth. Richer people/countries spend exponentially more on health care not necessarily because they are sicker but bc in the end we all die. Rich people can just afford to put off death longer and do so.
That I agree with. One reason our health costs have exploded is actually the result of better medical care. Better care means people live longer and this require more medical care. And as Americans we spend a lot of money caring for people that are in a vegetative state or close to it. People get on the government teet at 65 for medical and can live on that for 20-30 years with exponentially higher costs. While producing nothing and not paying for much of the expense. (Tho you could argue they paid into the system for 40 years and that covers the cost).
A huge chunk of skyrocketing spending is also Medicaid and medicare which people tend to conflate into total spending while blaming the private sector for increasing costs.
Crowding out is also real. Lots of parallels in education, housing, etc. Markets.
Comments
Edit: I had a well known alt. I forgot the password. You know what it was.
Crowding out is also real. Lots of parallels in education, housing, etc. Markets.