Hillary's Healthcare Plan

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Starchild


Our system might not be perfect but yours is barbaric. I've lived in all three countries (UK, USA and Canada) and I'd never wish to see a US style system be put in place elsewhere.

In the UK, we pay less per person and as a percentage of our GDP for universal coverage.

An independent study of Shiela Kuehl's bill (mentioned above) shows that under her single-payor system, all Californians would have full health coverage and her system would save $10,000,000,000 in the first year alone over what we Californians are paying now!

[Ramo]

So you, like Cali, dont understand the moral hazard issue? Sorry, thats harsh, but I thought wed been over this

Umm.. I never said that mandates shouln't be imposed. No, I said that mandates probably shouldn't be imposed until after we figure out where the cost controls and subsidies leave us.

Im not sure thats the most crucial aspect.

You don't think we should ultimately be moving towards single payer?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

So you, like Cali, dont understand the moral hazard issue? Sorry, thats harsh, but I thought wed been over this

Umm.. I never said that mandates shouln't be imposed. No, I said that mandates probably shouldn't be imposed until after we figure out where the cost controls and subsidies leave us.

But you cant figure that out based on a plan without mandates, since that will have a different cost structure. And if the lack of mandates causes significant problems, that may weaken support for the whole thing.

Im not sure thats the most crucial aspect.

You don't think we should ultimately be moving towards single payer?

TBH I havent thought about that issue much lately. Even if I did think that was the preferred direction, doesnt mean it would be the MOST crucial aspect.

[Ramo]

But you cant figure that out based on a plan without mandates, since that will have a different cost structure. And if the lack of mandates causes significant problems, that may weaken support for the whole thing.

You get a first order estimate. And if the subsidies are off, that may weaken the support for the whole thing.

TBH I havent thought about that issue much lately. Even if I did think that was the preferred direction, doesnt mean it would be the MOST crucial aspect.

Do you disagree that most of the benefits of, say, Hillary's plan in terms of cost effectiveness comes in terms of making the health insurance market less balkanized?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

But you cant figure that out based on a plan without mandates, since that will have a different cost structure. And if the lack of mandates causes significant problems, that may weaken support for the whole thing.

You get a first order estimate. And if the subsidies are off, that may weaken the support for the whole thing.

You get a first order estimate doing your analysis before implementing anything. Not sure that the empirical results from a differently structured plan are any closer.

TBH I havent thought about that issue much lately. Even if I did think that was the preferred direction, doesnt mean it would be the MOST crucial aspect.

Do you disagree that most of the benefits of, say, Hillary's plan in terms of cost effectiveness comes in terms of making the health insurance market less balkanized?

A. First, despite my cool, calculating economist manner, Im not only supporting this for cost effectiveness. Im more of a "social justice" guy than you give me credit for

B. I see the benefits to cost effectiveness largely coming from the shift away from ER use. Im sure there are other CE benefits expected, I will have to read the plan for that.

C. Even IF the benefits were coming from "debalkanizing the market" it doesnt follow that going all the way to single payer is even desirable. You could get all the benefits by going partway. And again, even if it were desirable to go all the way to single payer, it wouldnt necessarily follow that its crucial. You could get 90% of the benefits with 10% of the "debalkanization".

[lord of the mark]

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

they discuss the efficiencies on pages 11 and 12. Note they only quantify the portions that impact existing federal programs and so can be directed towards financing the goodies. They dont seem to put a number on the benefits flowing into the private system.

[Ramo]

You get a first order estimate doing your analysis before implementing anything. Not sure that the empirical results from a differently structured plan are any closer.

Ok, a second order estimate. I can't imagine that an empirical run of a similar system is going to less accurate than an untested model of the actual system. Anyways, due to enforcement issues, you're almost certainly not going to get all that close to universal coverage initially.

The point is that a slightly more inefficient system is going to be much less politically disastrous than a system with underfunded mandates.

A. First, despite my cool, calculating economist manner, Im not only supporting this for cost effectiveness. Im more of a "social justice" guy than you give me credit for

The cost effectiveness is what facilitates all the neat social justice stuff... Programs for the poor (i.e. welfare) tend to have a lot less support than programs for the middle class, which also benefit the poor (i.e. social security).

B. I see the benefits to cost effectiveness largely coming from the shift away from ER use. Im sure there are other CE benefits expected, I will have to read the plan for that.

C. Even IF the benefits were coming from "debalkanizing the market" it doesnt follow that going all the way to single payer is even desirable. You could get all the benefits by going partway. And again, even if it were desirable to go all the way to single payer, it wouldnt necessarily follow that its crucial. You could get 90% of the benefits with 10% of the "debalkanization".

The big difference in the system would be lower administrative costs. That Edwards/Obama/Clinton are homogenizing the private market does this to some extent, but you still have a lot of inefficiencies tied up in the fragmentation of the market. Single payer is the natural extension, and you need a public option open to everyone for that to happen. You also get greater control over costs in the industry with a dominant public insurance, i.e. in terms of incentivizing preventative care.

[Ramo]

A basic problem, though, is that the AMA makes training for a GP ridiculously long and expensive (relative to other countries), therefore making the salaries they need to get out debt excessive. What'd be nice is if we could incentivize the use of people with intermediate training for these types of situations.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ramo
A basic problem, though, is that the AMA makes training for a GP ridiculously long and expensive (relative to other countries), therefore making the salaries they need to get out debt excessive. What'd be nice is if we could incentivize the use of people with intermediate training for these types of situations.

Another basic problem is that 1 out of every 3 U.S.A.ian healthcare dollars goes to support the bureaucracy resulting for trying to administer thousands of health care insurers.

Insurers add NOTHING to the quality of healthcare.

[Kidlicious]

I kind of like the idea of doctors being trained well.

[Impaler[WrG]]

SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM NOW!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO
"I am from the government...I am here to help"

Stupidest thing Reagan ever said.

[DaShi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's Healthcare Plan

Originally posted by aneeshm


Wait a minute. You're telling me that the US is going to spend a further $110,000,000,000 on this scheme? Don't you already have cash problems? Where will this money come from?

It's not possible to treat the market economy as some sort of source of infinite wealth - it just doesn't work that way. You usually end up making things worse than they were before, by screwing up something you didn't know would be affected in the way it was. It's like trying to perform brain surgery with a hammer and sickle.

It's not always a direct increase to income tax. For example, the Child Healthcare Act, that George Bush hates, will be funded by increasing the tax on cigarettes.

[Sarxis]

What is I don't want health insurance? Or am homeless? Or just don't make enough for tax credits to make a difference in cost?

Besides, auto insurance is always optional, because driving is optional (in the strictest of senses).

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by PLATO


These things are not related. There are no parallels.

That pretty much covers it.