Three US states failed. It's Hsiao's list. You go find it if you really care. I'm satisfied that vox.com isn't painting a worse picture than it really is, being kinda biased and all. https://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin About half of countries who attempt to build single-payer systems fail. That’s Harvard health economist William Hsiao’s estimate after working with about 10 governments in the past two decades. Whether he is in Taiwan, Cyprus, or Vermont, the process is roughly the same: meet with legislators, draw up a plan, write legislation. Only half of those bills actually become law. The part where it collapses is, inevitably, when the country has to pay for it.
Wait, you are counting as a failure cases where someone proposed something and it didn't get enacted? That's a really pointless list, then. barfo
It passed the legislature in at least Vermont. EDIT: and New York. It wasn't a Bernie Sanders type proposal that got no votes in congress that got shelved in California - it sounded like a sure thing. As Vox wrote, they die when it comes to paying for it. No such thing as a free lunch. And I don't think we're going to be happy with the doctors who remain in the profession who'd be willing to take medicare payments.
why, according to the article denny sited, does healthcare in this country consume 1 1/2 times the percentage of our GDP compared to the next highest country( 17.%-11.9% Canada)? why do we receive a substandard product for a higher cost? who is benefiting from this? I saw the argument that the larger wager earner could not be expected to pay the same percentage of income as the lower earner. why not?
Government skews the market already. I had a biopsy done recently. The bill was over $10,000. It's lab work. Some technician just earned $10,000 an hour for staining a sample and counting cells. I assume that's all done by machine. $10,000 for a few minutes. Who can pay that $10,000? Someone with deep pockets. Uncle Sam. Take Uncle Sam out of the picture and nobody pays the $10,000. The lab cuts the price or goes out of business. There's every incentive for insurers to fight approving and paying onerous prices for care. There's no incentive to cut the price. Broken market. It's not capitalism's failure. Why don't doctors make house calls anymore?
They weren't rising before government started paying for it. Doctors used to make house calls, too. Insurance companies fight with one another over lower prices for auto insurance. The government doesn't pay for it.
can tort reform impact the cost of doing business enough to form an equivalence to the rates of increase?
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=5849 this data shows that healthcare costs were increasing annually on average 17% between 2000-2002 no ACA then.
I don't think so. The amount of money awarded seems like a pittance. However, the fear of lawsuits do cause the doctors to perform every test they can think of, just to cover their asses. I've proposed a Post Office style system. The government hires the doctors, builds the hospitals, buys the machines, etc. And they charge as little as they need to, to provide actual care. If they can do it for cheap as the single payer proponents claim, the other providers will have to cut prices to compete. Everyone gets to choose who they get care from, whether to buy insurance, etc. It's not VA, because the VA doesn't charge the patients.
Sorry, that looks blurry, but you get the point. The article goes on to say: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisc...ost-of-health-care-1958-vs-2012/#5a746dac4910 Of course, health care in 2012 is vastly different and greatly improved compared to what was available in 1958. But the same can be said of other goods and services (Perry, for example, is comparing the cost of an iPod to 4-speed automatic record player).[1] This simple comparison reminds us of three basic truths. In general, private markets tend to produce steadily lower prices in real terms (e.g., in worker time costs) and steadily rising quality. This is exactly what we observe for goods such as toasters, TVs, iPods, washers and dryers. In contrast, while the quality of health care unequivocably has risen since 1958, real spending on health care has climbed dramatically. This isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison insofar as the bundle of goods and services that constitute health care is also much larger today than in 1958. In contrast, even though the quality may be better, a washing machine in 2012 is still a washing machine.[2] If we were willing to rely more on markets in medicine, we might be able to harness the superior ability of Americans to find good value for the money to produce results more similar to other goods. Second, over time, we as a nation have been able to afford more health care precisely because the time cost of other goods and services has declined. For the same number of hours worked, workers can enjoy the same standard of living even as they allocate more of their working time to purchasing health care. There is nothing wrong with this. The only issue is whether we are getting good value for the money when we buy health care. With only 11 cents of every health dollar paid directly out-of-pocket, I think most of us can honestly say “no.” Anyone who is skeptical on this point should do the following mental experiment: if I promised to pay 89 percent of the cost of your groceries, would what you buy be different? Most students I ask freely concede that they would buy things they would not otherwise buy and might well pay higher prices even for things they would have bought anyway. The difference between the cost of your weekly groceries when you buy them with your own money (say, $100) and what you spend when someone else is paying most of the bill (say, $150) is not pure waste. There is some added value to you from those extra groceries. But that value cannot exceed the added cost else you would have bought them on your own in the first place. The difference between that added cost and your own estimate of the added value is what an economist would call waste. According to the Institute of Medicine, we wasted about $765 billion in health care in 2009—about 30 percent of all spending.
Medicare is not just another form of insurance. It's DEEP POCKETS paying. Why not charge $15,000 for a $1000 service and hope the government talks you down to $2500? It's only common sense. In 1981, we paid $2800, out of pocket, for the birth of our first, and that was in the deluxe birthing suite with all the bells and whistles. Today, that's going to cost $30K at least. Who can afford it? That's more than half the people in Hawaii make in a year.
The same economics fucked up higher education, too. But that's not what this thread is about. Just that it's soooo similar.
your telling me that the cost of doing business with 15% of the population drove up the costs for the other 85%? I don't see that as valid
