They only see center right, profit driven models for health care solutions.
Well, that’s not a bad thing. But, let’s instead deal with all your points by making a list:
- There is a rather large difference between HOW the profit motive is properly used in health clear delivery and other businesses; the left tries to ignore this distinction so it can slander GOP proposals as “free market”, which is not a slander for me and others, but it is for some.
- A properly designed universal care system uses the profit motive to control costs; it is a MEANS to an end, while in any other business or industry, the profit motive is an END all on its own. That is an important distinction.
- I get very concerned, and you should to, when the government is the backstop indemnifying against loss, because the government has no money. Essentially, it’s the TAXPAYER which is the ultimate backstop against loss, and that didn’t work so well in the late 1980s (S&L crisis) nor 2008 (mortgage crisis). That’s why I (and others) want a third party in the middle, sitting between the taxpayer and the patient, one who is expert at pricing health services risk and rooting out health insurance fraud, and who only gets to eke out a modest and highly regulated (2%-ish) profit IF they do their job excellently.
Not sure why. Insurance companies are not good at deciding price, but are very good at denying medical procedures based on cost not need. You must have never been denied a procedure recommended by your doctor before, which is a common practice. Why should those who value so much freedom decide to let an insurance company be the decider between you and your doctor is beyond me.
It’s not beyond me. Every system in the world uses a cost/benefit analysis to hold down costs. If you’re suggesting that every single patient should have access to every single possible procedure in their time of need with no questions asked, then you’re (a) formulating a system which is FAR more generous than any other in the world, and (b) can’t possibly work in the real world.
Thus, we know how may machines we need and the government can put resources around need rather than competitive institutions.
Hmmmmmm. You’re suggesting that the market doesn’t allocate resources around need? :-) You sure you want to die on that hill?
Reality is that each institution decides what equipment it needs to have BASED on that need. Nobody is shelling out 500K for a MRI machine that they don’t expect to use. The problem is not the cost of that machine, which is chickenfeed in the large scheme of things; the problem is WHY they charge so damn much to tie it up for an hour’s use. And THAT answer is very much tied to the cost of facilities and the salaries of health care professionals.
A expanded and improved Medicare model, like Medicare itself, would be much cheaper to run since it would eliminate the need for doctors to hire the many paper pushers they now do to sift their way through the over 1200 insurance plans.
News flash: most of those paper pushers are doing medical coding, which doesn’t go away. Have you been to the doctor lately? It takes them one press of the enter key to figure out what your out of pocket is going to be. Not a lot of people to fire to “fix” that.
Medicare operates more efficiently.
Yes, we’re well aware of this piece of fucking bullshit.
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by…
Of course Medicare is going to be “more efficient” than a private insurer. A private insurer has to maintain it’s own IT infrastructure, while Medicare just uses the government’s. The IRS does it’s billing for it and collects it’s funding; and Medicare pretty much ignores the problem of fraud that the private insurers spend so much time and money on.
And there’s more, but you get the point.
The blanket dismissal of Medicare for All doesn’t pass the smell test, and I wonder if you don’t have a horse in the race to make such a claim.
Let’s end this, since you’re now falling into conspiracy theories. (I have nothing to do with health care anything.)
- Currently, you have a public which is very much in favor of having a universal care system which acts as a backstop against loss of insurance in the public sector, or an inability to obtain insurance in the public sector. There’s only a couple of criteria they would like to see: One is that they’d like it not to disrupt the plan they are currently on if they have something they like; and two, they’d like to to run efficiently.
- Medicare For All, for it to WORK, would have to put every health care insurer in the country out of business and funnel all that to a government plan. It’s disruptive, very questionable if it would be cheaper, and very questionable if it would be able to maintain the same level of critical care excellence the public is used to getting.
- You cannot implement Medicare for All without a 60 vote margin in the Senate, which means you’re going to have to have something like 65–70 Democrat senators, because the red state Dem Senators are never going to go for it. They’ll remember how many careers were *ended* because of a
“yea” vote on the ACA. Heitkamp, Tester, Manchin, McKaskill are not stupid people; they know they can’t sell that back home.
- I can summarize (3) above for you very simply: It’s never happening. Period. So forget about it.
- If you care about universal care coverage, then work with the GOP to find solutions that fit the GOP’s desire to have a free market element working to control costs. In 2018, there will be a fair shot at combining the ACA approach with the HSA approach, if anyone is courageous enough to tell their own party leaders to STFU and work on it across the aisle.
To continue to push single payer into the face of a public who once they understand it, won’t want it, falls into the “definition of insanity” category.