Single Payer

[ShockerPrez]

Supply and demand??? Not even close. How is it not capitalism at play? It is more profitable to make $100 per customer off 80-90% of a given market than it is to make $30-40 on 50% of two especially when you start factoring in infrastructure costs. If you don't even have to maintain your network because no one is going to compete that's significantly cheaper than having to maintain two because there is competition.

As I said, if there are regulations barring entry into the marketplace for competition, that is not pure capitalism.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

My main issue with single payor is translating an issue for 10% of the population into a solution for 100% of the population. Putting our healthcare in the hands of the government is DANGEROUS!!!

I would be willing to spend money on government subsidies all day if it precluded them from having any control. I know thats never gonna happen. Lets just say that 650,000 bankuptcies per year are medical related. Average $100k per bankruptcy... 65 billion to make them whole? Sold.

Its not so much about spending the money for me, its the whole government control idea.

I'd rather go bankrupt and free to pursue a 50/50 chance at being cured than die with my savings because the government deems my case not worthy.

To echo @ShockCrazy:, your issue is single provider. And I agree, that's dangerous. Single payer still relies on free market hospitals and clinics to deliver services.

[ShockCrazy]

Why not charge $200 or $300 then?

That's simple economics. Think of it like ticket prices to a pro team. They are 90% capacity generally and not consistently sell outs, you could say why don't they lower prices? Well they've done the research, if you charge as much as you want, some people won't pay for it, and if you charge less to ensure that last 10% is sold, does it make up for the lost additional on the 90% who would pay more? So at $100 while it's stupid over priced most people will still pay for internet service, but if you increase by say $10 or whatever the number is, say 15% would stop paying for service, well then you've lost money.

[ShockerPrez]

That's simple economics. Think of it like ticket prices to a pro team. They are 90% capacity generally and not consistently sell outs, you could say why don't they lower prices? Well they've done the research, if you charge as much as you want, some people won't pay for it, and if you charge less to ensure that last 10% is sold, does it make up for the lost additional on the 90% who would pay more? So at $100 while it's stupid over priced most people will still pay for internet service, but if you increase by say $10 or whatever the number is, say 15% would stop paying for service, well then you've lost money.

Thsts supply and demand.

[SHOXJOCK]

Yes I know it's still government but at least it's more efficient.

[Aargh]

Where, in unregulated capitalism does the price always go up? True free market capitalism, mind you.

There's a young billionaire hedge fund manager with a strange name (I can't remember) who bought the rights to a cancer-treatment drug and bumped the price from double digits to thousands per treatment. Epi-Pens had a huge price increase.

There isn't enough competition among many larger American industries for there to be an incentive for business to compete for customers by lowering prices. When the product is something vital to life and something for which the population will pay any price (water, health care), there is no incentive to lower prices. Have you ever head of anyone shopping for the lowest dollar heart surgeon? Have you ever tried to get an estimate for a medical procedure?

Do you believe that breweries (I'm only using breweries as an example) price their beer at the lowest possible price point in order to attract customers from competitors? Pricing pressure is almost invariably upward as long as market share remains in a desired range. One brewery raises their prices. Any competitors quickly follow suit. Market share will stay about the same, the higher profits will look good to investors, and management will get huge bonuses for raising profits.

The free market model is functioning about as well as the Trump Presidency.

[Dan]

I'm curious as to what the ripple effect would be if the government is able to take insurance companies out of the equation. Is that the ultimate goal?

[ShockCrazy]

Thsts supply and demand.

Congrats, yes, the pricing itself supply and demand, but the service still a market monopoly that does not support the consumer. But it's supported by capitalism, so yay?
Edit: that is not to say I am opposed to capitalism, but there are markets where it does not belong, such as healthcare.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

The ultimate issue for healthcare in the US has never been quality of care, it's been access to it. That's why virtually no one is advocating single provider--it won't solve the problem. Single payer may.

Our costs are high and our quality of life is low, as shown on the chart earlier in this thread, because often times the lower economic classes cannot afford preventative care or treatments when they become sick. Private insurers, based on supply and demand, jack up rates just like the ticket price example. Private insurers have no obligation to cover anyone at a reasonable cost, they have an obligation to make money. Is that morally acceptable when people's lives are at stake? THAT'S the question this country has to answer.

[ShockerPrez]

There's a young billionaire hedge fund manager with a strange name (I can't remember) who bought the rights to a cancer-treatment drug and bumped the price from double digits to thousands per treatment. Epi-Pens had a huge price increase.

There isn't enough competition among many larger American industries for there to be an incentive for business to compete for customers by lowering prices. When the product is something vital to life and something for which the population will pay any price (water, health care), there is no incentive to lower prices. Have you ever head of anyone shopping for the lowest dollar heart surgeon? Have you ever tried to get an estimate for a medical procedure?

Do you believe that breweries (I'm only using breweries as an example) price their beer at the lowest possible price point in order to attract customers from competitors? Pricing pressure is almost invariably upward as long as market share remains in a desired range. One brewery raises their prices. Any competitors quickly follow suit. Market share will stay about the same, the higher profits will look good to investors, and management will get huge bonuses for raising profits.

The free market model is functioning about as well as the Trump Presidency.

Without a free market, there isn't even an epi-pen to begin with...

[ShockCrazy]

Without a free market, there isn't even an epi-pen to begin with...

Even in single payer Canada there is still research done in the "free market" by companies in the industry.

[jdshock]

Without a free market, there isn't even an epi-pen to begin with...

Without incredibly strict regulations governing patents and restricting entry into the market, there isn't even an epi-pen to begin with.

True, free market capitalism would see significantly less R&D than we see now, since companies would only reap a fraction of the benefits that they do now.

[Aargh]

Without a free market, there isn't even an epi-pen to begin with...

And without patent protection, there would be little incentive to spend money on R & D to develop it. But, with patent protection, the maker can charge anything they want, regardless of the cost to produce the product. It's a life-vital item, so the users pretty much have to pay any price. There is not pressure toward "whatever the market will bear". The pressure is unlimited price increases until the public is outraged.

If the public becomes "too outraged" they will express that in the voting booth. Unchecked Capitalism in a Democracy is a great recipe for the public voting for a Socialist system.

Back to the Epi-Pen. Someone who needs that product can get a prescription for the drug and for the syringe. The only patent protection is on the delivery mechanism. There is a $60 (I'm guessing - ask MoValleyJohn) solution to the problem, but doctors consistently prescribe the $600 solution.

[MoValley John]

Epinephrine is dirt cheap. Syringes are dirt cheap. No neep for an epipen. Learning how to self inject is easy, even for children.

[ShockerPrez]

My only real point, is that we seem to be quick to poo-poo free markets, but love to live with the fruits it provides. We see high costs here, and unfairness there, but fail to admit that without a free market in the first place, we wouldn't have the advancement or higher standard of living in the first place.

Costs are high for healthcare, but a lot of it is because we have the best care. We can treat things that 5 or 10 years ago were incurable. We can diagnose problems without symptoms. Being able to do that is expensive. But we also have to run unecessary tests in order to avoid lawsuits. It all contributes to it.

So, before we just jump to the conclusion that our benevolent government, who in their endless love for its citizens, will pay for all of our health needs out of the goodness of their hearts, perhaps there are better ways.