Keep your single payer to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it. I see your socialism and I piss on it
Thank you for that cogent and articulate analysis of the issue. It's apparent that you gave a lot of thought to it. You are an indispensable asset to this board and always assure a high level of discourse and debate. But perhaps you can tell us .....why are you so angry and threatened by the concept of single payer?
I have no problem with single-payer if it's absolutely voluntary as Obama care should've been. All socialist entitlement programs should be 100% voluntary there's nothing wrong with that, is there?
Well to be honest, I don't know for sure what would be wrong with it. Let's think about that. A single payer system would be funded by tax dollars. Those additional taxes would be off set by the fact that people would have fewer out of pocket expenses like deductibles and co pays and lower premiums. Maybe no premiums. Would those who choose to opt out be willing to pay those same taxes, or would we need to adopt an even more complex tax code to accommodate duel systems where some people buy insurance on the open market and others don't?
Another issue is the fact that any insurance system is only as good and stable as the pool of insured persons. There would need to be assurance that there would be sufficient numbers of younger health people who are part of the system for it to work. I'm not saying voluntary can't work. Just saying that I have questions about it. Your thoughts?
The depth of your lack of understanding of the healthcare insurance industry is staggering.
I suggest you begin (and, I DO mean, begin) your study by researching the Law of Large Numbers.
Then, you should follow that up by understanding how insurance companies make their money. Apparently, you are under the mistaken impression that insurance companies make their money on insurance.
Finally, you should study the impact of taxes, as well as the impact of redistribution of wealth. As an aside, you might want to look into the VERY consistent history of government levies on the people.
Until then, frankly, you are definitively unqualified to discuss the subject at hand.
Since you claim to know so much, why don't you actually resent some information on all of that instead of just disparaging me for lack of knowledge. I will admit that I'm not an expert on insurance but you have yet to convince me that you are an know what you're talking about. What exactly is your solution to the insurance issue?
First, let's try to alleviate your decided lack of knowledge.
1) The Law of Large Numbers says that, with a large enough base, the mean approaches the average. How does this apply to insurance? Simple - if the odds of a 17 year old male getting breast cancer is 1:500 million, with a large enough base, it becomes not a probability, but rather a certainty. This is how insurance companies are able to predict their claims. The probability of an occurrence is more a factor of the size of the coverage base, and not very much less a factor of the age of the coverage pool.There is zero risk - what will happen is guaranteed.
2) Healthcare insurance companies do NOT make their money on your "more premiums than payouts" viewpoint. Their goal is to have 3% more premiums than claims - but that is merely a management target. Failing to hit that 3% mark is, generally, irrelevant to their bottom line.
3) Healthcare insurance companies make their money the old fashioned way - through investing. Simply, if you pay a $100/month premium, they invest it (making money on it) until you file a claim. Multiply that by 100,000,000 customers, and you can see that they have a consistent, and lucrative, cash flow model. In fact, a few years ago, insurance companies were the largest single class of investors in the US. I have no reason to suspect that might have changed, but I suppose it's possible pension plans or mutual funds might have passed it by.
[Addenda: ask yourself what the government is going to do with all this excess cash. Will they invest it? Will they put it a safe deposit box until it's needed? Or, are they going to rape it clean like they have done with Social Security??]
4) Now, what does that have to do with the ACA/AHCA discussion going on today? ANY government controlled healthcare insurance program removes that money from the investment stream. We know that the government isn't going to invest that money - they are going to expand, create new expenditure programs, or pay down the national debt (you don't really believe that, do you?) Financial growth in this country will come to a virtual halt.
5) So, what's the answer? First, you have do decide who is interested in an answer. Medical providers aren't interested in lowering the cost of healthcare. Why would they want to cut their own income? Insurance companies couldn't care less ... they just pass the cost on to their customers. In fact, they actually like the idea of healthcare costs increasing - that raises the premiums, which raises the money available to them for investment (which is where they make their real money).
The government isn't interested in lowering the cost of healthcare. There is no penalty for increased taxes. In fact, just like businesses everywhere, the government's prime motivation is growth and expansion. Imagine, if you will, that you are a government middle manager. How do you enhance your career, get a higher position, make more money? By expanding your program, by increasing its budget!! These are the people that are going to make sure you get the best deal? Surely, you jest. You are a captive audience, and they simply have no motivation to sell out their future for you.
So, who DOES care? You do, of course. You want high quality healthcare at a reasonable price. What is the only tool available to you to influence the cost of healthcare? Competition. Assume for a minute, that the government has mandated that anybody doing a chest x-ray will received $100. The x-ray company is interested in making as much money as it can. Do you seriously believe you're going to get top-of-the-line, high quality service? Or, are you going to get a service that is cut to the bone, minimizing cost to improve profit?? So, how can you influence the quality of your health care? Shop it around. Demand competition. Let them bid on your contract. You want to be the final arbiter of the quality of YOUR health care, not some faceless bureaucrat whose primary motivation is to make his program bigger.
6) So, what's the answer? Open all markets to all insurance providers. No silly restrictions based on state lines. Force healthcare providers, and healthcare insurers, to compete for your money. If they are forced to compete, they will have to a) cut their prices, or b) give you more healthcare for your dollar. THAT is a win-win.
Provide people with a list of alternatives, and allow them to pick what best suits them. If you get better care, or expanded care, you SHOULD pay more than I do. It isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves. (By the way, if you actually read the CBO report on AHCA, they said that the result would be 23 million people who would not get healthcare insurance at the same price as those of the same age - not that they would lose their insurance - and that they assumed that all who had to pay more would CHOOSE to go without coverage). Gasp!! If you want the bigger hamburger, you have to pay more for it.
People talk about tort reform - nonsense. It's the only check and balance available us to influence the quality of healthcare. If you get bad healthcare, you're dead. Tough for you to negatively influence the doctor's customer base.
