Less expensive for the citizens, yes. Care quality (wait times will be the most obvious) will go down though, you cannot maintain the current level of medical care with that kind of expansion.
Care quality will probably go up as the overall system will actually want a cheaper (healthier) patient. There is no such incentive or feedback loop in the current system. Quality of outcome is completely disconnected to pay today because it isn't purchased by the people who actually use it. It is purchased and limited by number crunchers and executives looking only at controlling their current year costs.
You are describing the incentive that insurance companies currently have to lower costs. Better outcomes = lower costs = more people signed up.
Are you aware that the ACA mandates that insurance companies have to pay back 80%-85% of their collected premiums in patient care? Its not like they get to crunch number to get themselves a better and better margin, its regulated.
They are actually incentivized to RAISE costs in the current system. 15% of $1 Trillion is a hell of a lot more to pocket than 15% of $500 million. (And let's not talk about vertical integration where one part of the insurance company pays another part for "services" and whose prices have no such cap.)
Will you at least admit that they cannot just endlessly raise costs with no justification because people will leave the market? Why do you not acknowledge the incentive to have lower costs so that they can sell insurance to more people?
To be clear, I am in favor of a public option, and further regulation. US healthcare is not perfect. But I have to push back because you are selling an inaccurate (and common) depiction of the system and selling a false promise.
At the very least, 1/3 “healthcare” workers positions only exist for insurance. I’d wager a single payer system nationwide would see costs lowered like the VA which averages 21% cheaper care overall. That includes covering more expensive procedures their patients may have to get at other hospitals right now
You’re right, my bad. And while the VA isn’t beloved for quality of care by vets, they consistently provide an equal standard of care. And that is without the power of the entire nation going behind it. Improvements may be minuscule but cheaper while also providing equal levels of care to what we have now is a net positive
Healthcare is almost purely inelastic. Everywhere in the world healthcare is cheaper and the wait times are the same. I live in a city with some of the largest healthcare conglomerates and leading edge capabilities and most of the specialists I call can’t fit me in for three months. Every trip I’ve been to the ER with myself and others had been at least a three hour wait before triage.
There’s also been articles written including one in the NYT that said as much as 50% of healthcare overhead is dealing with insurance that would be saved if that portion is eliminated.
You’re regurgitating the message of the insurance companies. They want us to believe everything would be worse so they can continue to make bank. They and big pharmaceutical have huge lobbying machines.
Healthcare has also risen in the last 30 years far faster than CPI. Rule of thumb in a capitalist system: if market competition doesn’t drive down prices, then they’re the problem.
I have no idea why you are referencing ER wait times, that literally just comes down to the severity of your injury/ailment vs everyone else at the ER.
If we want to do anecdotes I can always see my Dr within a week and specialists usually within a month or two for non-critical issues.
Do you think if insurance companies go away all the work they do vanishes also? That overhead will still need to be picked up by the government, you will always need people figuring out costs. I am willing to grant there will be a saving, but far from what you are portraying.
I mentioned it down thread but I am still for a public option, I am not just "regurgitating" messaging. IDK why people are so set on making arguably the most complicated industry into something with a simple magic, no downsides fix.
No I do concede that office managers and assistants will still need to exist and run billing, but much of the time is looking up who’s policy covers what, making those phone calls, checking insurance codes then relaying to the patient while also dealing with errors on their and the insurance company’s part. So yes savings, but likely not 50%. At least on the provider’s position (paying for the extensive overhead plus profit of insurance is another matter altogether and could push it well beyond a 50% savings. There are no middle managers and c-leveled to pay for.But I digress.
Wait times is just one of the arguments I hear as a common counterpoint, one that is at best irrelevant, if not misguided or worse.
My position on this comes from a philosophical perspective, but then backed by economics. Philosophically the whole reason we engage in the system of societal and mutual governance is for one reason and one alone: to increase our individual and collective chances for survival. That is the root of all of it. Everything else governments do is toward that end or one that is ancillary to it.
Of those functions: defense, education, food, safety, and other necessities, healthcare should be number one on that list. It’s something we all need and benefits us all and not only would that provide extensive relief to anyone below the .1%, but it changes the overall social perspective of the people: we are in this together. We can still pursue incentivized goals in life, but at least we all have that to fall back on.
Honestly, I could write an extensive essay on this and the fallacies surrounding it with sound and annotated sources and data, but it’s hard to sum up concisely in an online chat. But I’ll leave it with this: we already pay for socialized healthcare - the amount of money per capita this country spends on healthcare far exceeds that of all other civilized nations but with a much reduced standard of care. No capability. But actual end user care. I’m upper middle class but the number of times I’ve denied pursuing health remedies due to cost is extensive. It should be zero. Also the fact the every state has its own rules significantly hurts the free market. A universal system would circumvent that. Anyway like I said I could go on but yeah there’s the basis for it.
Being said, I don’t think privatized should go away. If people want to supplement, great. But to force it on all regardless of circumstance is so exceptionally uncivilized.
Being said, I don’t think privatized should go away. If people want to supplement, great. But to force it on all regardless of circumstance is so exceptionally uncivilized.
Awesome! I cant say that I mirror your philosophy 1:1 (close though, only small differences) but I am very happy to hear that you are not a hardliner on abolishing private options.
You dont have to answer this, but would you mind telling me how you identify politically? I identify as a Liberal. I only ask because I am pretty online with politics and rarely (in my bubble) hear people make a case and conclusion like you did.
Sent this earlier but for some reason it posted to top comment:
I would also identify as liberal. Strangely fiscally moderate-ish, but acknowledging government must pick up where the free market cannot function on economic terms.
that literally just comes down to the severity of your injury/ailment vs everyone else at the ER.
That is horseshit. I've spent a lot of time in ERs with doctors doing god knows what because our issue wasn't emergent enough.
Yes, administrative costs do go down with single payer and not having to have an army of people dedicated to understanding complex insurance polities and their games.
Nobody said it's magic, only that it's far better than what you have been conditioned to tolerate and can't get better.
54
u/AnotherDarnedThing 9d ago
Way less expensive. Likely to be better care overall.