If Medicare for all is such a slick no brainer

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Rubberfist said:

I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.

Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?



I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.

Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.

It’s the profit motive of health insurance and pharmaceuticals that are bleeding us dry. Capitalism is working folks no need to change!

What percentage of profit do you think health insurance and pharmaceuticals are making? Most of the majors are public companies so we should all probably invest in them if they are making a killing.

What a twat.

Awesome idea! I’m going to put the $50 I have available after I pay my $800 monthly premium into Pfizer stock next chance I get.

Thanks Obama!

The last "fix" fucked affordable insurance

Can't wait for the next one!

The shitty part of Obamacare was the exchanges that allowed the insurance and pharma vultures continued windfalls.

The good part was medicaid expansion.

Dipshit, their profits were controlled and prices were fixed based on that under obamacare.

Except insurance companies were given 30 million new customers. Did you hear of one that complained about their supposed controlled profits?

And with more people covered, how much more do you think big pharma made?

I thought you were an economics smart guy too.

Which misses the mark if you are claiming they aren't providing services and simply raking in profits at the expense of care to customers.

Hondo, I really don't mind you and can see what you are getting at sometimes but you really do latch onto the oddest of angles of arguments. Let's break this down.

1) It's profits that are driving up costs! Consumers aren't receiving care!

2) Profits are fixed, it's not profits driving up costs.

3) Consumers are receiving care! That's driving up costs! Gotcha! (Lol wat?)

HardlyClothed said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Rubberfist said:

I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.

Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?



I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.

Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.

It’s the profit motive of health insurance and pharmaceuticals that are bleeding us dry. Capitalism is working folks no need to change!

What percentage of profit do you think health insurance and pharmaceuticals are making? Most of the majors are public companies so we should all probably invest in them if they are making a killing.

What a twat.

Awesome idea! I’m going to put the $50 I have available after I pay my $800 monthly premium into Pfizer stock next chance I get.

Thanks Obama!

The last "fix" fucked affordable insurance

Can't wait for the next one!

The shitty part of Obamacare was the exchanges that allowed the insurance and pharma vultures continued windfalls.

The good part was medicaid expansion.

Dipshit, their profits were controlled and prices were fixed based on that under obamacare.

Except insurance companies were given 30 million new customers. Did you hear of one that complained about their supposed controlled profits?

And with more people covered, how much more do you think big pharma made?

I thought you were an economics smart guy too.

He’s not an economics smart guy. See the thread where he said my use of “infrastructure” to describe private property rights, which was akin to conditions or framework, nullified my entire point.

Bruh, I copypasta'd wikipedia for you bc you are that stupid. That's the joke. You might get it if you were smarter and pm'd @IrishDawg22 to get clued in around here.

State price setting is an affect of central planning, you can argue that the strict definition of socialism is "state ownership of the means of production" all you want but it's a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Move your definitions if you like to central planning vs. free markets. My arguments remain the same.

Lol you really don't know shit about Econ. ~ Someone who graduated from UW's Econ department.

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Rubberfist said:

I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.

Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?



I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.

Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.

It’s the profit motive of health insurance and pharmaceuticals that are bleeding us dry. Capitalism is working folks no need to change!

There's a not for profit healthcare system operating right now. It's called the VA and we can all see how wonderfully they provide healthcare.

The VA! Venezuela! Bill Ayers!

Yes, yes how dare anyone point out real world examples of the system you're advocating for sucking ass. We should only focus on the socialist utopia that's in your mind.

Sure let’s pick socialism in the Nordics.

Right after they open their borders and pay for their own defense

That's the problem with the left - free healthcare and open borders is no way fucking possible at all ever

Pick one

A good many of the Nordic's rank higher than we do on the Economic freedom measures as well.

Let's discuss Denmark's policy of having no minimum wage.

I might be willing to trade massive government intervention in one industry for a massive reversal of government intervention in the entire labor market.

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Rubberfist said:

I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.

Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?



I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.

Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.

It’s the profit motive of health insurance and pharmaceuticals that are bleeding us dry. Capitalism is working folks no need to change!

What percentage of profit do you think health insurance and pharmaceuticals are making? Most of the majors are public companies so we should all probably invest in them if they are making a killing.

What a twat.

Awesome idea! I’m going to put the $50 I have available after I pay my $800 monthly premium into Pfizer stock next chance I get.

Thanks Obama!

The last "fix" fucked affordable insurance

Can't wait for the next one!

The shitty part of Obamacare was the exchanges that allowed the insurance and pharma vultures continued windfalls.

The good part was medicaid expansion.

Dipshit, their profits were controlled and prices were fixed based on that under obamacare.

Except insurance companies were given 30 million new customers. Did you hear of one that complained about their supposed controlled profits?

And with more people covered, how much more do you think big pharma made?

I thought you were an economics smart guy too.

Which misses the mark if you are claiming they aren't providing services and simply raking in profits at the expense of care to customers.

Hondo, I really don't mind you and can see what you are getting at sometimes but you really do latch onto the oddest of angles of arguments. Let's break this down.

1) It's profits that are driving up costs! Consumers aren't receiving care!

2) Profits are fixed, it's not profits driving up costs.

3) Consumers are receiving care! That's driving up costs! Gotcha! (Lol wat?)

Lol I enjoy arguing with someone who knows something, which you do.

However, I didn't come with the angle that they aren't providing services and raking in profits. The angle I approach it with.... They make about 5% profit, and it's fixed as you say, and there's huge waste. Government has even more waste, but is it more than the 5% profit? I don't know the answer to that. But I know with negotiated Medicare rates, overall costs should be lower than the current system.

Under single payer, the overall costs will be driven down for the reason mentioned before. And I think consumer costs will be lower as the increased tax will be less than what most consumers pay in insurance (yes there will be some losers) and out of pocket will be much lower.

I've also seen people screwed over because insurance companies won't pay for shit the doctor recommends and the patient needs. Sometimes from the insurance company overriding the experts opinion. And sometimes the specialist is out of network and bullshit like that. In all honesty, this is the main reason I want to go single payer as I'll probably end up paying more if we went to single payer.

Rec'd for civil discourse.

I did already *somewhat address this though.

Lower costs imposed by the government don't increase availability though. They simply mean fewer people have access to a lower priced good. Suppliers will only supply x amount at price y. They will supply less of x at lower price y. You can't force them to supply the same amount at a lower price even at the point of a gun. It never works.

Now, there are some costs savings from administration since there's only one person paying the bill but the government is notorious for paying bills late, increasing paperwork, etc. There is very little incentive to provide care and reduce waste. If anything, all of the incentives are to reduce care and increase waste. The reality of doctors that work on medicaid or medicare is that they have a whole staff section dedicated to that billing(from my experience) and tend to tailor their practice to dealing with those clients. This also doesn't count any of the government side of "administration" as cost, which it is.

There's waste in both systems, the difference is that in a private system you can choose to use a supplier with the least amount of waste and that puts downward pressure on suppliers to cut costs.

I can relate and empathize with your anecdotes, going through similar shit right now in my personal life with family members. In an actually free market though, you'd be able to simply leave your provider and get a new one. Providers who didn't cover their patients would quickly lose new customers the same way that driver's insurance works. We don't have remotely a free market though. We have a labyrinth created by government and the weird US artifact of getting your insurance through your employer instead of buying it yourself.

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Rubberfist said:

I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.

Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?



I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.

Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.

It’s the profit motive of health insurance and pharmaceuticals that are bleeding us dry. Capitalism is working folks no need to change!

There's a not for profit healthcare system operating right now. It's called the VA and we can all see how wonderfully they provide healthcare.

The VA! Venezuela! Bill Ayers!

Yes, yes how dare anyone point out real world examples of the system you're advocating for sucking ass. We should only focus on the socialist utopia that's in your mind.

Sure let’s pick socialism in the Nordics.

Right after they open their borders and pay for their own defense

That's the problem with the left - free healthcare and open borders is no way fucking possible at all ever

Pick one

A good many of the Nordic's rank higher than we do on the Economic freedom measures as well.

Let's discuss Denmark's policy of having no minimum wage.

I might be willing to trade massive government intervention in one industry for a massive reversal of government intervention in the entire labor market.

Ha, economic freedom measures. Just arbitrary bullshit from that the Cato institute pumps out.

Let’s discuss the percentage of laborers with collective bargaining rights being well over 50% in every Nordic country.

Wait but your brilliant free market devotees in the UW econ department said that labor unions are iniffecient and crush economic growth. Then why are they doing better than us?

You do realize that UW is a really liberal school right? The difference being that even liberal economists are at least economically literate.

Actually, a free market doesn't impose any restrictions on labor unions(private) and there's lots of evidence that companies that take care of their employees(freely) perform better.

A truly free market even allows for voluntary socialism.

So if those are more efficient then they would naturally take over the free market. They would just be voluntary instead of forced at the point of a government gun.

I know it's hard for you to understand these things.

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

RaceBannon said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HardlyClothed said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Rubberfist said:

I’m sure our healthcare outcomes are FAR superior to the countries behind us in this chart.

Is that because private individuals are wasting money or because the government is wasting money?



I love that all of the socialists like to pretend the US has a purely capitalist system when the argument is about how inefficient the current system is.

Intervene in the market, distort the market, blame the market, call for more intervention, rinse and repeat.

It’s the profit motive of health insurance and pharmaceuticals that are bleeding us dry. Capitalism is working folks no need to change!

What percentage of profit do you think health insurance and pharmaceuticals are making? Most of the majors are public companies so we should all probably invest in them if they are making a killing.

What a twat.

Awesome idea! I’m going to put the $50 I have available after I pay my $800 monthly premium into Pfizer stock next chance I get.

Thanks Obama!

The last "fix" fucked affordable insurance

Can't wait for the next one!

The shitty part of Obamacare was the exchanges that allowed the insurance and pharma vultures continued windfalls.

The good part was medicaid expansion.

Dipshit, their profits were controlled and prices were fixed based on that under obamacare.

Except insurance companies were given 30 million new customers. Did you hear of one that complained about their supposed controlled profits?

And with more people covered, how much more do you think big pharma made?

I thought you were an economics smart guy too.

Which misses the mark if you are claiming they aren't providing services and simply raking in profits at the expense of care to customers.

Hondo, I really don't mind you and can see what you are getting at sometimes but you really do latch onto the oddest of angles of arguments. Let's break this down.

1) It's profits that are driving up costs! Consumers aren't receiving care!

2) Profits are fixed, it's not profits driving up costs.

3) Consumers are receiving care! That's driving up costs! Gotcha! (Lol wat?)

Lol I enjoy arguing with someone who knows something, which you do.

However, I didn't come with the angle that they aren't providing services and raking in profits. The angle I approach it with.... They make about 5% profit, and it's fixed as you say, and there's huge waste. Government has even more waste, but is it more than the 5% profit? I don't know the answer to that. But I know with negotiated Medicare rates, overall costs should be lower than the current system.

Under single payer, the overall costs will be driven down for the reason mentioned before. And I think consumer costs will be lower as the increased tax will be less than what most consumers pay in insurance (yes there will be some losers) and out of pocket will be much lower.

I've also seen people screwed over because insurance companies won't pay for shit the doctor recommends and the patient needs. Sometimes from the insurance company overriding the experts opinion. And sometimes the specialist is out of network and bullshit like that. In all honesty, this is the main reason I want to go single payer as I'll probably end up paying more if we went to single payer.

Rec'd for civil discourse.

I did already *somewhat address this though.

Lower costs imposed by the government don't increase availability though. They simply mean fewer people have access to a lower priced good. Suppliers will only supply x amount at price y. They will supply less of x at lower price y. You can't force them to supply the same amount at a lower price even at the point of a gun. It never works.

Now, there are some costs savings from administration since there's only one person paying the bill but the government is notorious for paying bills late, increasing paperwork, etc. There is very little incentive to provide care and reduce waste. If anything, all of the incentives are to reduce care and increase waste. The reality of doctors that work on medicaid or medicare is that they have a whole staff section dedicated to that billing(from my experience) and tend to tailor their practice to dealing with those clients. This also doesn't count any of the government side of "administration" as cost, which it is.

There's waste in both systems, the difference is that in a private system you can choose to use a supplier with the least amount of waste and that puts downward pressure on suppliers to cut costs.

I can relate and empathize with your anecdotes, going through similar shit right now in my personal life with family members. In an actually free market though, you'd be able to simply leave your provider and get a new one. Providers who didn't cover their patients would quickly lose new customers the same way that driver's insurance works. We don't have remotely a free market though. We have a labyrinth created by government and the weird US artifact of getting your insurance through your employer instead of buying it yourself.

I don't have time now to respond to all of this. But I will say on the supply comment, think of it this way. Right now the struggle is in ER mostly, right? (In terms of supply). If everyone was covered and a lot more and better preventative care was used, wouldn't that change the demand side?

And yes I know the counter argument is the people who go to the doctor over the sniffles. But that happens anyway and the increase wouldn't be as dramatic as the decrease in overall services due to preventative maintenance.

I really should get back to work as well right now and stop engaging with Hardly Clothed FS. I'll let Bob have it out with him.

Who knew Hondo would be the adult in the Tug today? I look forward to more civil discourse.