- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does Government even have to be in health care?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:01 am to silverdude
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:01 am to silverdude
quote:
You ever heard of lifetime medical costs limit? Pre-existing conditions? Getting screwed financially for life because me or my child decided to have a permanent disability? Getting charged extra for daring to be pregnant?
A freer market brings those costs down through competition both with the medical providers and the insurance companies themselves. What the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid have done is frick the laws of supply and demand. The four rules of Supply and Demand in a normal market are:
1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and higher quantity.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and lower quantity.
3. If supply increases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and higher quantity.
4. If supply decreases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and lower quantity.
What we have in the healthcare market is a situation where Supply (healthcare professionals) is limited due to the high barrier of entry (ie: education) but government programs throwing metric fricktons of money. This doesn't so much "create" more Demand as it actualizes more Demand that had been unrealized due to Price.
So if Demand increases but Supply remains the same, what happens to Price? It must go up (unless a ceiling is put in place, in that case market pressures must go elsewhere).
One of the biggest things Congress should do (but won't because "muh freebies111") would be to allow ER's to refuse service to non-emergency issues (hang-nail, fevers under 100, psoriasis, etc).
0
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:03 am to TBoy
quote:
Perhaps you don't realize that government REQUIRED electric utilities to run lines to every house, and that is why everyone has electricity service.
Not exactly...
People were offered an opportunity to join electric cooperatives for $5. Most did.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:04 am to stout
Should be a state issue.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:06 am to stout
quote:
Why not let the free market work? If they would just repel Obamacare and let insurance companies compete across state lines, it seems like prices would drop without Uncle Sam's interfering too much.
Free loaders that want insurance might have to get a gasp...job
That just isn't reflective of reality.
Insurance companies competing across state lines is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. It is a fight you have to have 50 times over, and the political reality is no state Insurance Commissioner is going to want to lose power within their fiefdom.
As to your comment about freeloaders, again the numbers don't agree with your premise. Most adults on medicaid work. 77% work at least part time.
Similarly most Americans who get 100% subsidies through the exchanges also work.
To your question... if the working poor can get insurance completely subsidized through the exchanges why do we still need medicaid at all?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:08 am to Twenty 49
quote:
The insurers have shown they are good people who can be trusted to provide good coverage for a reasonable price without government telling them what to do.
Sarcasm right?
Switch out insurers with gov't and it holds true also. Why people think handing the reigns over to the gov't some how keeps people from getting screwed is beyond me.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:10 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:Interesting. Many countries have WAY MORE government involvement in healthcare - yet still have much lower overall costs and similar or better outcomes.
If Uncle Sam would butt out, healthcare costs would stabilize at affordable levels...just like EVERYTHING else does when there's no government intervention.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:12 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:Yeah - the Rural Electrification Act had no impact.
Not exactly...
People were offered an opportunity to join electric cooperatives for $5. Most did.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:16 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Many countries have WAY MORE government involvement in healthcare - yet still have much lower overall costs and similar or better outcomes.
And a higher tax rate, unemployment and lower GDP.
Look at Sweden, for instance. Their average income tax is ~57%. They also have a 25% VAT on many things. Their unemployment rate is still above 6% and their GDP is a fraction of ours (500B vs 18.5T).
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the problem is, as with many arguments against the free market, that people would rather not plan ahead, knowing they can rely on government action if their decision turns out poorly. think banks that need bailouts
No, but i don't believe it's a positive or responsible thing (on multiple levels) to allow such a dramatic swing in leverage. We're not talking about wants here, we're talking about needs.
Even with an arguable "need" such as a car (not on the same level but you know what i mean) the consumer has options available at their disposal that often do not exist when it comes to medical care
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 10:17 am
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:18 am to LSUcjb318
quote:
Until the hospitals turn away the poor and homeless, socialistic healthcare will be necessary.
I'm all for turning them away, however all the people "with a heart" wouldn't accept it. However, if you made a medicaid/free healthcare clinic next the hospitals and told them go in there for your subpar/free shite and let us who pay for our shite allow it to continue it would save exponential costs. I believe that and tort reform, which the house passed the other day, are the 2 major real life solutions. The problem is there's no pork in it for politicans so they're not interested in it!
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:21 am to stout
quote:
Why does Government even have to be in health care?
One word.....DEMOCRATS
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:33 am to stout
"Why does Government have to be in ________________ .
Why not let the free market work."
You could fill in the blank with 100s of other words besides health care.
Why not let the free market work."
You could fill in the blank with 100s of other words besides health care.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:36 am to stout
Because government knows best.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:40 am to stout
This would have been a good question 7 years ago. Now that there are "entitlements" politicians are scared to take them away for fear of being called murderers. Nose of the camel under the tent.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:48 am to stout
Healthcare is more like infrastructure than for-profit business. No one profits from highways, bridges, sewer systems, electrical grids, etc. as a result these entities must be funded by government and regulated. Same with healthcare.
Due to the personal and critical nature of healthcare, the government provides an essential service in the internal monitoring of the healthcare infrastructure: research and development, billing practices, certification and licensure of providers and laboratory personnel, compliance with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, compliance with HIPAA regulations, etc.
When people talk about "getting government out of healthcare", it makes me queasy. Healthcare is no mom-and-pop business venture.
Due to the personal and critical nature of healthcare, the government provides an essential service in the internal monitoring of the healthcare infrastructure: research and development, billing practices, certification and licensure of providers and laboratory personnel, compliance with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, compliance with HIPAA regulations, etc.
When people talk about "getting government out of healthcare", it makes me queasy. Healthcare is no mom-and-pop business venture.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:51 am to Twenty 49
quote:
Get the government all the way out of it and get rid of the tax breaks for employers and employees who pay premiums, and let the marketplace really rule.
While i'd agree, some oversight is needed. Notice i say oversight, not control. I'm 100% for capitalism, but not for unfettered capitalism, and basic oversight is needed. That doesn't mean tax breaks for this and that, mainly a watchdog and standards that aren't intrusive but prevent companies taking advantage of their insured.
However, that's how all government starts, then it gets vastly out of hand, like Obamacare, and needs to be fully dismantled and reigned in.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:53 am to stout
Every other advanced country on Earth (and most developing countries) have single payer systems for health care. Instead of incurring costs in excess of 17% of GNP they're in the 8% - 12% range.
They also have longer life spans than the USA and lower infant mortality.
Even Cuba, which was way behind the USA in 1959 now has an average life span just one tenth of a year less than the USA and has a significantly lower infant mortality rate at a cost of about 8% of their GNP.
That's why.
They also have longer life spans than the USA and lower infant mortality.
Even Cuba, which was way behind the USA in 1959 now has an average life span just one tenth of a year less than the USA and has a significantly lower infant mortality rate at a cost of about 8% of their GNP.
That's why.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:55 am to silverdude
quote:
Pre-existing conditions?
Should not be covered under standard insurance. Insurance, by definition, eliminates pre-existing conditions. Because if Pre existing is covered, then it's no longer insurance, its shared costs of medical expenses.
I think a separate pool for pre-existing should be established to help those in need, but i do not think it should be considered insurance in any way or form.
quote:
Getting charged extra for daring to be pregnant?
You aren't charged "extra" for being pregnant. And, FWIW, the main drivers of medical costs is liability and administrative costs. Adding pages of paperwork to each individual requires more staffing, who get paid to do a job. We are seeing that with Obamacare, as one of the minor reasons for the outrageous cost of that bill. The main driver is the MANDATE.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 10:57 am to BigAppleBucky
quote:
Every other advanced country on Earth (and most developing countries) have single payer systems for health care. Instead of incurring costs in excess of 17% of GNP they're in the 8% - 12% range.
They also have longer life spans than the USA and lower infant mortality.
Yeah, the US Government is well known for getting a good deal for the American taxpayer. % of GDP will totally go down if they get involved.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News