re: Corporations like single payer because it keeps healthcare off the balance sheet

quote:

---

Source?

---

Everyone who works in healthcare knows this. I'll leave the ramifications of that for your supposed knowledge about the system hanging thick in the air.

quote:

---

Let's say you achieve a cost savings of 20% with a public option (lol). How many people lose their jobs in this scenario?

---

Not sure you have thought out this logic well. If a public option were introduced under the parameters they were originally designed, the plan would have to be self-susitaing and negotiate with healthcare providers like anyone else in the marketplace.

So healthcare providers would not go lower then would be economically acceptable to them. Savings under the public option are typically realized because they would operate without the sort of administrative bloat private insurers do. With their high upper management salaries etc. The competition would theoretically put more pressure on private insurers to also negotiate harder to compete. Increase the pool and create benefits and savings from economies of scale.

Would there be economic rearrangements in the marketplace, obviously. Changes always produce that. You would have gained employment in the administration and operation of the public option, likely increased demand that would put upward pressure on the healthcare labor force in certain areas. Put some downward pressure on prices that could force responses that could include labor cuts in some places(raising them in others), but also as we see time and again, businesses will seek their own efficiencies outside of labor cuts to address changes in market conditions.

But i think you are hinting at taking the basic framework I was speaking about to contextualize the broad mechanism to an extreme and that is a bit silly.

Using California's calculations, a nationwide UHC system would cost somewhere around 3.5 trillion dollars. The government spends close to a trillion on healthcare now, so we'd have to make up the additional 2.5 trillion. The total revenue of the federal government last year was 2.9 trillion.

This means we'd need an 86% percent increase in taxation to get back to the 2016 deficit.

quote:

---

Using California's calculations, a nationwide UHC system would cost somewhere around 3.5 trillion dollars. The government spends close to a trillion on healthcare now, so we'd have to make up the additional 2.5 trillion. The total revenue of the federal government last year was 2.9 trillion.

This means we'd need an 86% percent increase in taxation to get back to the 2016 deficit.

---

California's proposal right now before re-working is, frankly, stupid.

It basically has no price controls, no framework to negotiate prices or set price schedules, none of the mechanisms that all other UHC countries have to control vast over-consumption and rampant gaming of the system. This would be like Medicare if you just told doctors to charge what they feel like, make no attempt at organizing the reward system to avoid runaway volume over-billing, no mechanisms to deal with fraud, and pay for any medication people wanted as long as a doctor says go for it. Not even Bernie Sanders was that generous and reckless with his vague Medicare for all proposal.

It's final form will likely look a lot different then the current one. But as of right now it is pretty problematic.

Lobbying groups do the negotiating.

Also we need to separate Medicaid for all versus Medicare for all. The Medicaid for all would be much cheaper but is obviously more bare bones coverage.

quote:

---

Cause theyre the only countries with UHC?

---

No. Because you asserted govt involvement begets better negotiating power and it doesn't get any more powerful than those places.

quote:

---

Can i see your evidence? Gotta be easy almost every country converted to it at this point. Surely all their healthcare showed a drastic decrease? Or a majority?

---

Well. 75% of all new medical procedures and treatments have come out of the U.S. over the last 30 years.

In other words, the shite those other places are giving away wouldn't even be available to give away but for the U.S.

So, there's that.

quote:

---

I'm starting to smell a whiff of bull shite coming from your direction all of the sudden.

---

It's probably just a change in the direction of the wind. You've been bullshitting about healthcare since you showed up here.

I'll be more exact with CMS language.

A provider cannot charge "substantially less" for their "usual and customary rates" than CMS allowable charges. If you have any questions, CMS has an 800 number.

quote:

---

Medicaid for all would be

---

A waste of money.

quote:

---

If everyone is on Medicaid, how can there be negotiation when one side has no other options except cash patients?

---

Medicaid already gets steep discounts. It's a liberals wet dream to negotiate the discounts between Medicaid and drug companies. But private insurance is subsidizing Medicaid usage of the drug. Everyone converting to Medicaid would likely increase the price long-term versus what Medicaid currently pays.

quote:

---

Corporations like single payer because it keeps healthcare off the balance sheet

---

It will still be there, just more opaque. Instead of a direct expense line item it'll show up as reduced revenue from reduced demand and it'll arrive in the form of lower working capital as the government will be vacuuming it up to give away for gimmies.

quote:

---

Big business will be for it

---

Yep. Will keep new entrants out. Hell, it already is. We see it every day.