So, 1% of the time, you’re ok with wildly gouging the patient, since they are not in a position to negotiate.
That’s the opposite of what I said. If you’re not going to read, fuck you.
Those 28 Million who remain uninsured? Fuck ’em.
Nope. I am proposing a universal care system which financial incents the patients to cost-shop their care. So, you’re “28 million uninsured” is actually “zero”.
So what if their poverty tends to lead them to more serious health issues that make them more vulnerable to medical price gouging? They should get better jobs.
Universal socialized coverage creates, essentially, a single payer model that has far more leverage to negotiate price controls than any individual.
Well, they have leverage to an extent. They can’t lower costs to the point that hospitals refuse to treat patients at a loss, and doctors and nurses refuse to run practices at a loss.
And that’s the problem. The cost of providing the service forms a bottom floor for what group negotiation can achieve. Which is why simply grouping people together here doesn’t work; the cost horse has already left the barn.
2016. I sourced the figure to, I believe, a consumer reports article. Did you read it?
Didn’t have to, because it doesn’t make sense. The article I linked to said that there were 800,000 bankruptcy filings in the US, total, in 2016. You claimed that there were 775,000 medical bankruptcy filings in the US in 2016. So, you’re claiming that THIS is true:
Chuckles. I have to say, Ron, you never disappoint. You come up with stuff that’s so preposterous it requires no refutation. :-)
And, by default, you actually prove Megan McArdle’s point; that the statistics on what is considered a “medical bankruptcy” or not is so skewed by the bias of the “analyst” that it challenges the limits of credulity.
…we have data on what’s been happening with bankruptcies over the last 10 years. The number of bankruptcies right now is slightly higher than it was in 2007. This is emphatically not the result we would expect if medical bills had been causing a large plurality of bankruptcies and Obamacare reduced those bankruptcies to practically nothing.
Megan McArdle’s opinion notwithstanding, the conservative bubble is quite alone in scoffing at the damage the insanely high cost of healthcare in the US does to wealth and economic security.
Nonsense. We’ve been talking about it, on and off, since the demise of Hilarycare. The problem is that if the subject is not “single payer”, the liberal bubble puts their fingers in their ears.
28 Million Americans are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, and they don’t have adequate access to coverage.
Well, that means that 28 million Americans are one job loss away from bankruptcy as well. But, regardless, you and I agree that it’s an exposure worth solving, so let’s move on.
Your perch, from a safe space in middle income America, blinds you to the fact that 47.5% of Americans are either in poverty (14.5%), or are within sniffing distance of it (33%), and several hundred dollar co-pays are not within their reach. But, BFD, right?
Nope. That’s why people on my “perch” want to streamline government, make the economy more efficient, and increase the availability of good paying jobs. A paycheck will always be worth more than a welfare check, after all.
The ACA helped alleviate some of the problems with US Healthcare, but it can’t solve all of them, because the fundamental problem with healthcare is the mistreatment of it as a free-market commodity.
Yawns. The Netherlands treats it like a free market commodity. Switzerland treats it like a free market commodity. Singapore treats it like a free market commodity. All of them have universal systems that you’d be very pleased to have here.
The issue remains — you have to control costs. If whatever you do does NOT control costs (and price controls are well documented as ineffectual as compared to supply/demand signals) the system will fail.
When you are sick, healthcare isn’t optional. Since everyone, at some point, will get sick, participation in the healthcare market is compulsory for everyone.
We’re agreeing that there should be a universal system, so that statement is irrelevant.
A market in which everyone must participate is in no way free. You cannot choose to opt out. Well, you can, but you’ll die.
Well, that’s humane. :-). Apparently you’re unaware that even in nations with single payer systems, you still can choose a private option and pay the price if you get sick. Most people of means in the UK, for example, also pay for a private health insurance policy that they can use if the NHS fails to perform. It’s relatively cheap, because it’s assumed that the NHS will provide most care, but even still, it remains desirable.