Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Break up Big Tech?
Comments
-
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
You are?MikeDamone said:
No. It’s not. The government has made sure it’s not a competitive environment.HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
I’m surprised you didn’t know that. -
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.MikeDamone said:
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60'sHHusky said:
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.MikeDamone said:
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
Socialism/communism 101.MikeDamone said:
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
We agree that government intervened in the system decades ago. I understand you oppose Medicare for All. Do you want to end Medicare for Any?RaceBannon said:
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60'sHHusky said:
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.MikeDamone said:
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
How about we end medicare for the didn't pay into the system folks?HHusky said:
We agree that government intervened in the system decades ago. I understand you oppose Medicare for All. Do you want to end Medicare for Any?RaceBannon said:
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60'sHHusky said:
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.MikeDamone said:
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
Why it assumed that if someone believes government shouldn’t do something, that it shouldn’t be done at all?HHusky said:
We agree that government intervened in the system decades ago. I understand you oppose Medicare for All. Do you want to end Medicare for Any?RaceBannon said:
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60'sHHusky said:
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.MikeDamone said:
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
If you want to attack Obamacare as solving few of the inefficiencies, you’ll have to get in line behind me. If you want to attack Obamacare for creating the inefficiencies, you weren’t paying close attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.htmlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees.
-
Cool link, now what was the answer you had to my question?HHusky said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
If you want to attack Obamacare as solving few of the inefficiencies, you’ll have to get in line behind me. If you want to attack Obamacare for creating the inefficiencies, you weren’t paying close attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.htmlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation, you have to think most or all of the difference in administrative costs between the US and Canada is transaction costs. It is the chief administrative difference between the two countries.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Cool link, now what was the answer you had to my question?HHusky said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
If you want to attack Obamacare as solving few of the inefficiencies, you’ll have to get in line behind me. If you want to attack Obamacare for creating the inefficiencies, you weren’t paying close attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.htmlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
If that is true, what would be the difference between costs in the US and Switzerland? And most of Europe, which does not have single payer.HHusky said:
Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation, you have to think most or all of the difference in administrative costs between the US and Canada is transaction costs. It is the chief administrative difference between the two countries.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Cool link, now what was the answer you had to my question?HHusky said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
If you want to attack Obamacare as solving few of the inefficiencies, you’ll have to get in line behind me. If you want to attack Obamacare for creating the inefficiencies, you weren’t paying close attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.htmlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
Could be the mandatory standardized coverage (on which insurers can’t make a profit, btw). That seems likely to reduce transaction costs. But there may be other reasons at work as well.MikeDamone said:
If that is true, what would be the difference between costs in the US and Switzerland? And most of Europe, which does not have single payer.HHusky said:
Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation, you have to think most or all of the difference in administrative costs between the US and Canada is transaction costs. It is the chief administrative difference between the two countries.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Cool link, now what was the answer you had to my question?HHusky said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
If you want to attack Obamacare as solving few of the inefficiencies, you’ll have to get in line behind me. If you want to attack Obamacare for creating the inefficiencies, you weren’t paying close attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.htmlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees. -
The USA already has that. But it’s provided by the government. (In Medicaid and Medicare. And it’s free)HHusky said:
Could be the mandatory standardized coverage (on which insurers can’t make a profit, btw). That seems likely to reduce transaction costs.MikeDamone said:
If that is true, what would be the difference between costs in the US and Switzerland? And most of Europe, which does not have single payer.HHusky said:
Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation, you have to think most or all of the difference in administrative costs between the US and Canada is transaction costs. It is the chief administrative difference between the two countries.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Cool link, now what was the answer you had to my question?HHusky said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
If you want to attack Obamacare as solving few of the inefficiencies, you’ll have to get in line behind me. If you want to attack Obamacare for creating the inefficiencies, you weren’t paying close attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.htmlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Right, so what percentage of overall cost do you suppose transaction costs make up of total service?HHusky said:
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.UW_Doog_Bot said:
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.HHusky said:
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees.
