A quick question for Americans (Health Insurance)

[BlackCat]

I know this will be looked at as a dumb question, but I really don't understand...

Why would this be best?

In nearly every other industry competition has promoted cost savings and efficiency. Why would removing competition make it cheaper and better?

Wouldn't standardization of filing forms and regulation of coverages be better?

Sorry...don't mean to be dumb, but I just don't get this one.

I'm a bit confused that you are confused over this.

It might be different in US, but over here (Denmark/europe) public admin are whipped to be effective and have low costs so the admin costs are probably similar to that of a industry.

Wrt. standardization, I can't imagine anything simpler than one equal coverage for all and one place to go.

Maybe 10% (probably more) of your payments to the insurance company doesn't go to to your benefit - they end in the shareholders pockets.

Last, a singular entity that negotiates payments to the hospitals can effectively reduce the costs for treatment. If the hospitals also are public, then yet another 10% (probably more) goes to your health.

[BlackCat]

Uh, no. Single Payer will drastically drive costs upwards as if you have only one buyer, and that buyer is the government, there's no incentive to cut costs or waste.

Pure BS.

[rah]

Actually, almost all the enrollment gains went to Medicaid, not Obamacare, as both you and the article confirms.

Those people were only able to enroll in Medicaid due to Obamacare. To not count them is typical Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Those people were only able to enroll in Medicaid due to Obamacare. To not count them is typical Ben.

Then why bother having exchanges at all? Why fine people for not buying insurance? I think we both know the answer to that question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Pure BS.

So you say. Why not have one grocery store? One gas station?

[giblets]

Every single payer country spends far less per capita on health care than the USA

[Ben Kenobi]

Every single payer country pays far less per capita on health care than the USA

Not so. The Norwegians pay more and the Swiss pay more. The gap really isn't that great. Might have been in the past, but single payer costs have been rising.

The reason for that is that care is rationed. You either ration by price or ration by availability.

[BlackCat]

So you say. Why not have one grocery store? One gas station?

More BS.

Your argument was :

that buyer is the government, there's no incentive to cut costs or waste

which is more BS. Government institutions are under high pressure to cut both cost and waste because politicians don't want to raise taxes.

[BlackCat]

Not so. The Norwegians pay more and the Swiss pay more. The gap really isn't that great. Might have been in the past, but single payer costs have been rising.

The reason for that is that care is rationed. You either ration by price or ration by availability.

This is really funny. The Norweigans and Swiss are paying more because they reduce care

[Ben Kenobi]

This is really funny. The Norweigans and Swiss are paying more because they reduce care

Oh, then why are they paying more?

[Ben Kenobi]

which is more BS. Government institutions are under high pressure to cut both cost and waste because politicians don't want to raise taxes.

Not BS at all. Competition reduces prices because if you charge too much, other people who can deliver for less will take your business away. Single payer eliminates that burden, and look at Obamacare. 25 percent increases this year alone. If politicians don't want to raise taxes, why are Americans seeing their insurance costs jump 25 percent in a single year?

[BlackCat]

Oh, then why are they paying more?

Just a wild guess : better tratment.

[PLATO]

I'm a bit confused that you are confused over this.

It might be different in US, but over here (Denmark/europe) public admin are whipped to be effective and have low costs so the admin costs are probably similar to that of a industry.

Wrt. standardization, I can't imagine anything simpler than one equal coverage for all and one place to go.

Maybe 10% (probably more) of your payments to the insurance company doesn't go to to your benefit - they end in the shareholders pockets.

Last, a singular entity that negotiates payments to the hospitals can effectively reduce the costs for treatment. If the hospitals also are public, then yet another 10% (probably more) goes to your health.

Thanks BC. It must be nice to have a government whose main product isn't waste.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just a wild guess : better tratment.

Oh. So American care > Denmark?

[Ming]

Actually, almost all the enrollment gains went to Medicaid, not Obamacare, as both you and the article confirms.

Uhhh... the changes in Medicaid were a part of O-care. All you are focusing on are the exchanges, which is just ONE part of O-care.
And, let's not forget all the children under 26 who are still covered on their parents plans who weren't before.
O-care is more than just the exchanges.

So yet again, you are wrong as usual.