Health Insurance is the Problem, Not The Answer

[dblack]

The health care system in the US is a TOTAL market failure.

The dirty little secret in the US is that workers pay MOST of all the costs for their own health care. This is done through out-pocket payments, contributions to premiums, moving compensation $$$$ from wages to benefits, as well as state/federal/payroll taxes for Medicare, etc.

Employers, insurers, unions, and providers don't serve the best interests of employees. Insurance companies price gauge by leveraging purchasing power to extract discounts from health care providers to reduce benefits. The very large providers will utilize their market position to increase prices without a consideration to costs or quality. We then have employers leverage in the labor market where employees have less employment options. They can get away with getting increased deductibles and out-of-pocket payments from their employees. And unions resist as much as they can, given they've basically been decimated.

If we look at the numbers it's pretty pathetic. Average premium and out-of-pocket expenses are roughly 40% of median household income, and even more if we include the payroll tax. Our total health care outcomes for the US population are moving at a very slow rate, yet premiums keep increasing year after year. This transfer of our wages to total health care isn't providing any type of improved value for our money.

Exactly. Which is why it's such a damnable travesty that we've allowed Congress to lock us into a failed system.

 

[Kimura]

The health care system in the US is a TOTAL market failure.

The dirty little secret in the US is that workers pay MOST of all the costs for their own health care. This is done through out-pocket payments, contributions to premiums, moving compensation $$$$ from wages to benefits, as well as state/federal/payroll taxes for Medicare, etc.

Employers, insurers, unions, and providers don't serve the best interests of employees. Insurance companies price gauge by leveraging purchasing power to extract discounts from health care providers to reduce benefits. The very large providers will utilize their market position to increase prices without a consideration to costs or quality. We then have employers leverage in the labor market where employees have less employment options. They can get away with getting increased deductibles and out-of-pocket payments from their employees. And unions resist as much as they can, given they've basically been decimated.

If we look at the numbers it's pretty pathetic. Average premium and out-of-pocket expenses are roughly 40% of median household income, and even more if we include the payroll tax. Our total health care outcomes for the US population are moving at a very slow rate, yet premiums keep increasing year after year. This transfer of our wages to total health care isn't providing any type of improved value for our money.

Exactly. Which is why it's such a damnable travesty that we've allowed Congress to lock us into a failed system.

Three words: Medicare for all. Problem solved.

 

[Rshermr]

The availability of insurance makes goods and service appear to be "free", thus adding to inflation in those areas.
Only the government could fail to understand that people spend their own money more wisely than they spend other people's money.
Health Care's Third-Party Spending Trap - Reason.com


More at the source.

Although I largely agree with the gist of this, you should understand that the "doctor" cited in the article is hardly representative of the health care industry. That whole industry--and doctors in particular--have profited handsomely from the concealed costs of the insurance industry scam, and they are the reason it still exists (and why we still do not have real national healthcare for Americans).

Healthcare industry professionals are the reason for the extraordinary cost of American healthcare.

All you are do is guessing. You have no documentation to support you comments.
Now here are FACTS you can check out and then if you are NOT to lazy maybe refute the points I'm making...
FIRST WHAT was the "health care crisis"??? Most people FEEL don't think it was what Obama said:

"We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children,"

So I am 100% confident YOU too think there are "46 million"..

THERE NEVER WERE 46 million that were legal citizens, that knew they were covered by Medicaid or WANTED insurance!
Now if you have any guts you'll check these links that I provide!!!

1) 10 million are not citizens : Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

2) 14 million eligible are like 2 people I KNOW that are eligible for MEDICAID but just haven't REGISTERED!!! http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf
Do you understand??? These 14 million are eligible for Medicaid... THEY WERE before ACA! But the failure of the organization that is trying to push ACA couldn't seem
to get these 14 million registered! WHY?


3) 18 million under 34 making over $50,000 don't want their employers' plans..!! don't want:CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

So you tell me why it is NECESSARY to FORCE these people to buy something??


Add the 10 million illegals, the 14 million that don't know and the 18 million that don't want equals: 42 million is what that adds up to but not 46 million for sure!

But totally ignorant people obviously like YOU guess, and believe the idiot president and others and NEVER investigate the above links!
4 million that is all! NOT 46 million and not worth destroying health care!

Because, me boy, most of us are tired of paying the medical costs of the uninsured. Which is nearly always done in the most expensive way. In an emergency room.
And because we hope that by insuring the uninsured, costs will go down, and many more people will live. Because, as we have the highest cost health insurance in the world, except for the Marshall Islands, it would seem like a good idea to most to have preventive medicine and less costly treatment for those that can not afford health insurance.
And because with health insurance, as it is true of auto insurance, you must insure all in order to bring costs down.
And for many other reasons.

To put it in purely economic and selfish words, because I do not want to pay for your health because you do not.

 

[dblack]

The health care system in the US is a TOTAL market failure.

The dirty little secret in the US is that workers pay MOST of all the costs for their own health care. This is done through out-pocket payments, contributions to premiums, moving compensation $$$$ from wages to benefits, as well as state/federal/payroll taxes for Medicare, etc.

Employers, insurers, unions, and providers don't serve the best interests of employees. Insurance companies price gauge by leveraging purchasing power to extract discounts from health care providers to reduce benefits. The very large providers will utilize their market position to increase prices without a consideration to costs or quality. We then have employers leverage in the labor market where employees have less employment options. They can get away with getting increased deductibles and out-of-pocket payments from their employees. And unions resist as much as they can, given they've basically been decimated.

If we look at the numbers it's pretty pathetic. Average premium and out-of-pocket expenses are roughly 40% of median household income, and even more if we include the payroll tax. Our total health care outcomes for the US population are moving at a very slow rate, yet premiums keep increasing year after year. This transfer of our wages to total health care isn't providing any type of improved value for our money.

Exactly. Which is why it's such a damnable travesty that we've allowed Congress to lock us into a failed system.

Three words: Medicare for all. Problem solved.

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

 

[Kimura]

Exactly. Which is why it's such a damnable travesty that we've allowed Congress to lock us into a failed system.

Three words: Medicare for all. Problem solved.

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

 

[Rshermr]

Healthmyths (good name for him) says the following:

But totally ignorant people obviously like YOU guess, and believe the idiot president and others and NEVER investigate the above links!

Yes indeed, you are ignorant. that comes from taking information from bat shit crazy con web sites, like NCPA.org, and treating it as impartial information. Just proves you to be agenda driven. Perhaps if you actually investigated independent and non-partial sources, you would have a point. But you don't, and you do not. If someone posted information from moveon, I would suggest that you should not bother reading it. I do not waste my time with agenda driven sources. And people who push such sources are dipshits. Plain and simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

Three words: Medicare for all. Problem solved.

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

That's demonstrably false. You are an ill informed boob. My only mistake was peeking at your post after I put you on iggy.

 

[initforme]

I see big pharma a part of the problem. Why can we not just stick it right to them? I would love to see it. They charge such massive prices for their bloody pills half of which probably aren't worth the bottle they are put in. And they continue to get away with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see big pharma a part of the problem. Why can we not just stick it right to them? I would love to see it. They charge such massive prices for their bloody pills half of which probably aren't worth the bottle they are put in. And they continue to get away with it.

You just want to stick it to someone who is more successful. Fuck that.

Drugs are very expensive to bring to market, thanks in no small part to the FDA. And once they are on the market, companies have a short window to recoup all the money they put into development, plus pay for all the other drugs that didnt make it. The patent period used to be 7 years and was shortened, raising prices all over.
Can you name the last major drug developed in Europe or Canada?

 

[Rshermr]

Three words: Medicare for all. Problem solved.

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

 

[Kimura]

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

That's demonstrably false. You are an ill informed boob. My only mistake was peeking at your post after I put you on iggy.

Thanks for the erudite response.

 

[Kimura]

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

It's a step in the right direction, but I just don't like that the health insurance industry was involved in crafting the bill, etc.

I view health care like national defense: it should be a priority. Human capital may be even MORE important. Our national defense is basically single payer. The government pays private firms to build bombs, missiles, tanks, submarines, etc. I think healthcare should be done the same way. Medicare is way MORE efficient than any private insurer. We'd literally think it was ridiculous if we had to purchase "national defense insurance".

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

Wait, so you judge that it was an improvement for most people based on one case of your relative's experience?
How does that work?

 

[dblack]

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

People like a lot of the effects of heroine. But I wouldn't want my kids strung out on it.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

It's a step in the right direction, but I just don't like that the health insurance industry was involved in crafting the bill, etc.

I view health care like national defense: it should be a priority. Human capital may be even MORE important. Our national defense is basically single payer. The government pays private firms to build bombs, missiles, tanks, submarines, etc. I think healthcare should be done the same way. Medicare is way MORE efficient than any private insurer. We'd literally think it was ridiculous if we had to purchase "national defense insurance".

Yeah.. I sure don't get that 'step in the right direction' thing. It's like Democrats wanted chicken, Republicans wanted steak. So Congress said, ok, we'll compromise. Here's some rat poison.

Step in the right direction???

 

[jasonnfree]

America is still the wealthiest country with a couple of exceptions like Singapore. Every industrial country has national health insurance but we can't afford it say the repubs? Why not?

 

[Kimura]

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

It's a step in the right direction, but I just don't like that the health insurance industry was involved in crafting the bill, etc.


I view health care like national defense: it should be a priority. Human capital may be even MORE important. Our national defense is basically single payer. The government pays private firms to build bombs, missiles, tanks, submarines, etc. I think healthcare should be done the same way. Medicare is way MORE efficient than any private insurer. We'd literally think it was ridiculous if we had to purchase "national defense insurance".

Yeah.. I sure don't get that 'step in the right direction' thing. It's like Democrats wanted chicken, Republicans wanted steak. So Congress said, ok, we'll compromise. Here's some rat poison.

Step in the right direction???

Yeah, there's people who'll be able to afford coverage for the first time.

 

[The Rabbi]

America is still the wealthiest country with a couple of exceptions like Singapore. Every industrial country has national health insurance but we can't afford it say the repubs? Why not?

Ahem
Richest Countries in the World

 

[jasonnfree]

And you wonder why medicaid was complained about all this time.. as well as these other government subsidies/interferences

Well of course it's easy to fix the overall cost of healthcare if you decide that the poor will have to sink or swim on their own.

That's never going to happen in America. That's why the dreamworld you live in and the crazy ideas it spawns are so ridiculously irrelevant to any common sense conversation.

PERSONAL UPKEEP AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.. medicaid was a mistake in the first place... just like every other government handout program, both private and corporate

It is those aspects of the 'socialized' system that drag us down... and it is the ever growing legion of leeches that keep it going... for as those in power vote to increase that group by giving more, making it easier to get handouts, making people think they are owed shit for nothing... and we are at that 50% tipping point... where a majority can demand to be supported by the minority at the hand of government.. and that is NOT what the constitution and the framers setting it up ever intended for this country to be...

Strides must be made to go onto the path of ending this shit... period.. or else we are doomed to complete government control.. the leeches don't really care, but those of us who have pulled ourselves up and have a smidgen of success certainly do

Examples of being doomed by government programs.
Yeah, the people in the rural south were doomed by the TVA giving them electricity.
I'm doomed to not being infested with mosquitos because my county does vector control. These thieving sb's take my money and I have no say so. Better to live free and die with malaria is my next bumper sticker.

 

[Kimura]

America is still the wealthiest country with a couple of exceptions like Singapore. Every industrial country has national health insurance but we can't afford it say the repubs? Why not?

We're dealing with ideologues who live in some fantasy land. They have the free market option: if you can't afford health insurance, you can die in the name of "markets".