They'll be calling you a radical...a liberal...!

Mar 30, 2017 5:30 PM

ArcaneConjecture

Views

349265

Likes

8093

Dislikes

381

Source: https://www.wallstreetdaily.com/charts/0715_HealthcareInsurance.png

Why do we continue to pay healthcare money to people who don't provide any healthcare? Other countries have much cheaper systems and they don't have overpaid CEOs.

The profit motive, applied to healthcare, incentivizes treatment over cures, and so this otherwise good idea becomes a wellspring of evil

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I used to work in the insurance business as a salesman. I can 100% agree with this. It's a cash grab for the CEO's, nothing more

9 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 3

Well it'd also help if American corporation didn't feel like their #1 priority is their stockholders. Idk how to change it, but it's fuck up

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

Stockholders are their bosses, so naturally they're the first priority, it's their facelessness that forces an assumption they're amoral.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well so long as a company has comfortable control over its shares, they don't need to bend to shareholders. And too many just sit on cash

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Health insurance is regulated. Healthcare "reform" should start with healthcare. Hospitals/Drug Corporations are out of control.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Agreed. All the hospitals in my area were bought by the same corporation. And now they're all horrible.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He doesn't deserve the last name Swedish! He brings skam on my country

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

The rapists in your country have already took care of that

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 8

Skam is shame in Swedish

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Finally a healthcare post i agree with

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Actually, drugs companies too - drug costs in the US are *massive* compared to the EU.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

But we pay the insurance company first, so clearly they have all of our money and deserve all of our hate.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Part of the problem is high prices in the US subsidize low prices everywhere else.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think certain industries shouldn't be for profit. When everything is just about money corruption is inevitable

9 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 1

We call that "America", as the value of the dollar (or just the possibility of making them) is much higher than the concern for lives.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Then why would people enter the market? No company is going to want to lose money giving people health insurance. Be realistic

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

That's why socialized healthcare is the answer

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

That's his point NO companies.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

If only there were some way for insurance to be subsidized through the government, so it was more simple and accessible, and not a commodity

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Free market and competition stop being a good thing when those on the supply side "win" the competition by someone getting/remaining sick.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

But which "supply side" is actually winning if someone gets sick? Hospitals do well (probably, though there are some limitations), drug 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But which "supply side" is actually winning if someone gets sick? Hospitals do well (probably, though there are some limitations), drug 1/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

companies definitely come out ahead, but that actually hurts insurance company profits. The sicker you are, the more they have to pay out /2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It is much more complicated than that: https://youtu.be/09RvU9_m30Q

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Wife making me watch some stupid movie. Putting dot here to come back and watch later.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wow, that was very interesting. A great summary of the current state of healthcare in the US.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hospitals should be government property, Doctors should be government employees. Healthcare is too important to be private.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 6

Have you seen how well out government employees do at running the country or educating the children? I'm sure they'll figure out HC tho

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's a fun joke. The reality of it is the country runs pretty damn well considering it's run by popularity contest.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Healthcare is too important to be taken care of by U.S. govt employees.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 6

The Government can only give the money to the hospitals, and doctors. and cuts out the inbetween expenses.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, can you imagine the fights between reps and dems about medical standards? They can't even agree on abortions.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Super Tramp reference. Duuuude. +1

9 years ago | Likes 234 Dislikes 4

As a kid, this was my favorite song because they called him "a vegetable" and I had no idea that it meant anything other than carrots.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

A criminal.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Every time I say "my ex-wife," it's a super tramp reference.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

A criminal.

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

God I was so scared I missed the reference. I just forgot to read the title first.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Oh, take, take, take an upvote!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

*crazy ass sax solo*

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

US pays more taxes of non-universal healthcare than Europeans do of universal one. Too many leaches indeed

9 years ago | Likes 129 Dislikes 3

All thanks to the FDA and "lobbying", not bribing. Apparently its not the same eventhough both involve giving money for something in return

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Our Supreme Court was good enough to make bribery legal.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Holy shit! We Norwegians are not the highest tax payers in the world?!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

as a european, if our insurance ceos all drop dead im throwing a party too. they might be better than yours. but theyre still evil

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

What I love about this chart is that, based on OECD average cost, the US gov't is ALREADY paying enough for free healthcare for everyone.

9 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 0

You could have also read what I wrote next to the link ;)

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

lol.. true, but to be clear, US gov't spending is often more than European public AND private spending combined!

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

That just tells how little these corporations care if it's not their own money they are spending.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Are you suggesting that free markets don't work well for healthcare??? /s

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yeah. Unfortunately, those guys are legally allowed to bribe politicians, so they won't be abolished any time soon.

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 4

Vote Justice Democrats at 2018 to turn the tide. Their platform is about taking coporate power from politics.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 4

They just need a handfull of corporate donations to get their campaign rolling

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Same argument won with federally backed student loans. Let's cut out the middleman and give more value to the consumer.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Can I have the source please?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Wow, you guys downvote an innocent request for a citation? This toxic allergy to facts regarding insurance always leads to some fun posts.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

prolly downvoted because the source is in the post. chill the f out, dude.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's the thing though it's actually not, the link leads to a photo of a line graph

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

With a watermark saying bigcharts.com

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This sounds like the rant when a Doctor ranting why he needs IT and support when he built a network at his house and it's fine.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

THIS WEBSITE IS BROKEN, I LOOKED AT THE CSS FILE

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'll tell you this as someone who worked for one of the biggest chicago hospitals. They care less about employees and more about themselves

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

UHC is a fucking crap company, granted I'm sure they all are. Fucking stealing benefits from their customers and giving them shit in return

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I've made a ton on their stock tho, so it can't all be bad.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The process UHC puts doctors through to get paid is a fucking disgrace. And when they do, it's pennies on the dollar.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I have UHC and chronically ill. They want to give me a fucking babysitter. That's right, they want to give me someone to "manage"...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...my "case" and "help" mediate between me and doctors to "manage" my condition. It's a thinly veiled attempt to deny me coverage because...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...my "case manager" would be able to deny my coverage for testing, appointments, and treatments. They hate that I'm using what I paid for.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

YUPPPPPP I work in a nursing home and like yes. They drop people that like need the fucking care

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have faith that the invisible hand will correct this by giving most of us Americans an invisible middle finger.

9 years ago | Likes 92 Dislikes 7

I'm going to use this now.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

"The reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there" -- Joseph Stiglitz.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Right up the invisible pooper.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Certain services should not be a for profit industry. Police, firefighters, judicial system, and health insurance to name a few.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Jails (oop$)...

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Mandatory health insurance is definitely not the way to fix what's wrong with our health care...

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 18

They care about the amount of people covered more than the quality of healthcare.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Insurances are just a form of socialism "together we are stronger", so Europeans kinda pay for mandatory insurance too.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Mandated insurance I guess, then it just becomes who would you rather control everything, corporations or government?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They can coexist. Here the public sector competes with priv hospitals. If treatment costs 100€ at public, gov will pay 100€ of same care (+)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(+) If the treatment is done at private sector. This way private sector can't push the prices up unless ppl really want to pay for it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So some get free healthcare, You can go to a hospital right. when needed, Get health care and declare bankruptcy.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Doesn't sound fair for others paying for you.If one does. Sounds like a fraud. Why have forced car insurance.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree. Healthcare certainly shouldn't be a for-profit industry.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

100% true. Health insurance companies bring absolutely nothing of value to the healthcare system. They're just a worthless middleman.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 5

If they really did only cover emergencies (Like every other type of insurance) they'd have their place paying high end surgeons.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2) to ensure solvency and sufficient profit to justify running an insurance business. To dismiss all insurance is simply childish wishy 3)

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

3)washy fanciful thinking. Altruism is irrational. Only by interlocked personal gain can society function.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

SIngle payer would pool funds to guarantee coverage while spending most of it on outliers too. Insurers add no value, just red tape and cost

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And who would administer the single payer plans? The same government who just sold out our privacy for kickbacks?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Health insurance pools funds from everyone to cover the emergencies of the few. They also build investment portfolios with your premiums 1)

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

...I can't tell- are you being serious or sarcastic?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Being typical uninformed internet person who takes things at an emotional level.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Irony lol

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No. No. No. Didn't you hear, they're the only thing saving us from the evils of socialist "government run" healthcare!! *giggles

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Single payer. Simply extend Medicare to every American citizen.

9 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 5

Do you know who administers Medicare? Private insurance companies. Do you know why? Because they know how, unlike the government.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah, so you'd be OK with Medicare being expanded to all, then.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's a good idea but I'm going to have to pick you up on the use of "simply".

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

what's the objection? cost, complexity or ______

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's the proposed system that's (comparatively) simple. The politics is, of course, impossible, right now (because of Republican opposition)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

what's the objection? cost, complexity or ______

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A modest expansion of medicare was part of ACA. Democratic states did it, Republicans blocked it. It's an uphill struggle, not simple.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Transitional step would be a public option, giving people the opportunity to buy into Medicaid.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Exactly. Please get this done, @flarflarf.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Flarflarf 2020

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I need a shirt with this on it...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You have NO idea how quickly we can get Imgur on board for that!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You wanna "fix" US healthcare, revert the laws allowing stockholders in hospitals.

9 years ago | Likes 101 Dislikes 18

And insurance companies

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I disagree. Shifting hospitals to for profit doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Many already are

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

And then on-profit hospitals, like Catholic hospitals, skimp on the Care for women if it may harm a fetus.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Dang, non-profit*

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

That's for philosophical reasons, not because of the not-for-profit status. And Catholic hospitals are all not-for-profit.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Get rid of preferred providers. Don't let medical suppliers get exclusivity then inflate prices. Stop hospitals inflating insurance prices

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

compared to direct pay.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As someone that works in finance at a massive system. We have to price based on the lowest contractual reimbursement aka govt plans.(1)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We cant cherry pick patients or start changing charges based on your provider. Most Medicare plans I have seen reimburse at 8-15% of charges

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If your "fix" is a single change, it's not a fix. There is no single option solution to this very large problem, it will take many changes.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Don't let pharma companies advertise drugs to the masses, and let prescriptions be a Dr.'s Idea. "Sad sometimes? You need $12/day prozac!"

9 years ago | Likes 58 Dislikes 4

So then we should end free speech? Are you afraid of patients taking an interest in their own medical needs?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Pharma companies couldn't always advertise on TV. Alcohol and tobacco is regulated too. Companies don't have right to freedom of speech btw.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Companies are just groups of people. Do people have to surrender their rights to engage in business?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You clearly don't know anything about corporate law. Yes, companies are restricted in what they can advertise, and to what audiences.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Don't forget Dr.s getting paid to push certain drugs as well.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

*Side effects include insomnia & ED. "Can't sleep? You need $11/day Ambien" "Dick broke? You need $60/pill viagra!" Or Dr says "It's normal"

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 2

It's normal to be down sometimes. Life isn't a fuckin 24/7 party. People seek drugs b/c the commercial acts like it's not completely normal.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 31, 2017 2:51 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 31, 2017 2:52 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

big help would be making for profit health care illegal. just like the for profit prison thing. take the money out of it and many other 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

issues with the system will sort themselves out to a large degree if not completely.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I think the regulated public monopoly model might work, like for utility companies (like gas or electric). Modest profit, public oversight.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

not a bad way to go either. simply cant be a 'free market' model. leaves too much room for the kinds of abuse we see today.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Heh, American and their health insurance problems (EU citizen)

9 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 19

Yes. (Canadian citizen)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

what a cringe comment. Good for you pal.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Did you know that they pay even more of healtcare from their taxes than we do? It's not even universal and they pay insurances too.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Well that's a scam.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

yay Europe ????

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 31, 2017 2:23 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

And the settlers of North America murdered the local population by the millions but I don't see how either is relevant to this discussion.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

He was joking in bad taste. He was saying there's only healthy people in Europe because of the nazi's.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Well saying there are no sick people in europe today because a group of people killed a lot of them roughly seven decades ago just isn't-

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

-even vaguely close to how neither disease nor healthcare works.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Why when someone says "Im from EU" you assume Nazi Germany?

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

The EU has private health insurance conpanies too

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 6

look at them costs tho.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sure, but entire EU has Universal health care.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 3

Yes but they definitely don't overprice like the US does nor are they the only option

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

...and their belief that letting people line their pockets at will solves all problems.

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 1

Like many aspects of US policy, the majority hate it but the system makes real change nearly impossible. Most of our cherished basic 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

social programs came from the 1940's and 1960's. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No thats just the American republican philosophy. I feel like I mostly see the ignorant and easily manipulated join/side with the party(1)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(5) automate you and your job they would throw you away like trash in a heart beat.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(4) keep creating jobs. When really the end goal of business men is to reduce jobs to a minimum while maximizing revenue. If they could

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(3) citizens into voting against their own best interests. They convince the populace that as long as they keep getting money they will

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(2) however at the head of the party there are masterminds pulling the strings. The republicans behind the curtain are the ones fooling

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Last time I was in the EU and broke my arm I had to splint it myself and wait 8 days to get a cast. Im america, under an hour.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Where the hell was that?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

France

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

One time I was in the ER for 8 hours, next time in 3 hours. What's your point? Slow day happen in the US?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's not like 2 standing waiting to do cases. You just got lucky.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 30, 2017 11:09 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

I'll give you a +1 bc I haven't been in a UK hospital and ppl are downvoting you.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As opposed to clean hospitals just for wealthy people..

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 5

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 30, 2017 11:10 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Elaborate on that ER

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Well, there is a huge problem with drug resistant staff. I know nurses who've lost eyes, fingers, skin all over their body.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Right, it's not like running a multi-million dollar international company in a highly regulated industry is actually /difficult/.

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 20

And it's not like investors should actually get /any/ sort of return.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 13

I just don't get why people want the profit motive incorporated into their healthcare. Seems like a needless expense

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

Would you work 80-100 hours a week saving people's lives if you weren't being generously compensated?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

And also at huge risk for lawsuit.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Except that's a doctor or nurse. Not anyone in the insurance industry.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Your blurring 2 seperate issues. You can compensate Dr's appropriately and not have "for profit" healthcare.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There is no difference between "compensation" and "profit". Does the company that oversees the care not deserve "compensation" also?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We don't pay people because their job is difficult. We pay them because their job is useful. Health Insurance Companies do *nothing* useful.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 17

Health insurance companies do nothing useful? ...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Don't they, like, help people pay for health procedures?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Give me $100 a week and I'll "help you" pay for $90 worth of groceries. Am I doing something useful by "helping you" pay for food?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And then one week, I need $5000 dollars of groceries and you still help me pay even though I've really only given you $100 that week

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's priced in. You'll need 90 a week, on average, some weeks more, some less, but I'm still a middleman thats less efficient at risk pool

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Not when the procedures would cost less than health insurance if insurance didn't exist.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

What happens when they cost more?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What happens if unicorns fly out of one's butt? They never cost more because of the need to pay for the Insurance Company middleman.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Supply & demand is just lost on you? You pay people for difficult jobs, that not many people are capable of doing.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 15

Farting rainbows is difficult. But that doesn't mean I'll pay you for it, because (like insurance companies) farting rainbows isn't useful.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Didn't use to be that you HAD to pay someone to risk their money on your continued health. O-care took away the option of paying for

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

catastrophic care & medical emergencies out-of-pocket, without a middle-man. Which, I agree with you, would be the better option.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It seems that a lot of people associate money with evil.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Are we not forced to buy insurance via the current government regulations? Therefore it is useful since we HAVE to do it...

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

We should change the current law to a system that has no wasteful, unnecessary insurance companies.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

Exactly - tax-free HSAs for day-to-day health expenses & insurance for major catastrophies.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Why should insurance CEOs get a cut of our hard earned dollars for "major catastrophies"? What have they done to earn it?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Government, unnecessary and waste are synonyms. Trying to break them apart would require better people to be hired.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 6

I call "bullshit". People say that the private sector is more efficient, but they can never produce any empirical data. It's a myth.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The problem is that insurance companies make a profit by *not paying out*. Which is fine for many things, but not health!

9 years ago | Likes 226 Dislikes 10

Oh boy... that 3% profit! Yeah... that's totally the problem with American Health Care.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

The comment on that link is very on-point, but also... 2011 is basically ancient history in terms of US health care.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's the most recent. But I very much doubt the private industry has undergone a shocking change since then...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There have been MASSIVE changes in the health insurance landscape since then, mostly due to the ACA.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Exactly! The real death panels are insurance company claims offices.

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

I can't stress this enough. My husband was offered a 50k a year job woth CVS...denying coverage. He prefers to be able to sleep at night.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Yes and no. Short term yes, long term they always profit. The more the pay out, the more they will raise rates. The only way to kill (1)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

an insurance company is to kick them so hard with their pants down they can't get back up. Meaning, they paid out more in losses than (2)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

than they collected in premium, but also so disproportionately they lack the capital to survive long enough to get back on their feet (3)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

faster than going belly up. It usually takes a huge catastrophe of some kind, be it mother nature or human nature

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Catastrophes are especially dangerous if they're alone. Death spiral of having neither money nor ability to raise rates & losing customers

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

here's the real problem... insurance is a shared risk. unless people pay into it, there is no money to pay out when someone breaks 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

their neck. now, they do gouge prices and are bitches about paying out... but that doesn't make the nature of insurance evil

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It is if you are selling a necessary commodity.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

so grocery stores are inherently evil?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No. But food should be made available to all people for minimum cost. Same as water.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Problem is the high cost procedures. Maybe we shpupd do "everything" to save someone's life. Economics is reality, not emotions

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Should have been "shouldn't"

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ehhhh... it's easy to say when you're not the person on the table. a lot of hospital costs are locked up in the expenses of 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

devices, equipment, electricity, sterilization, laundry, disposables like syringes, etc. R+D for life saving machines is high, the cost 2/3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

reflects all the expenses a medical equipment company has in getting the machine to the hospital. that is why shared risk is best 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yup. US taxpayers pay enough hc-taxes to have universal heathcare with current funds. System is rigged.

9 years ago | Likes 55 Dislikes 1

Make your own post with that information. It's rarely mentioned and I think it needs to be seen by more people.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Feel free to copy that and post it urself.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I'm lazy :(

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You're assuming a public version would be better, or even as good. The VA and medicare systems don't really square with that.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

With the current system at US, the hospitals even benefit from not being effective at care. More treatments & more profits from insurances.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. It cant get much worse than what it is now All these example countries do it better with public & ½ cost

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Sure, but it's well known that the US essentially subsidizes drug research.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's a pretty insignificant factor. Research costs are ~2% of the entire budget on healthcare.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Once again, our systems that follow your proposal are the ones that drag our quality of care ratings down the worst.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Actually, according to your chart, several of those countries don't do it better than we do, although they do spend less.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

With that spending, US should be #1 on everything except cost.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

If the VA or medicare/aid systems were even remotely effective/efficient, you'd have a much stronger argument here.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Medicare is still far from public healthcare that EU has. The fact that "hospitals" pay their own bills make a huge difference to efficiency

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Out of genuine curiosity- why do you say the system is "rigged?" Massively inefficient along a number of dimensions, sure, but rigged?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Rigged to benefit the shareholders by pushing the costs to extremes. Even the goverment supports and allows it to be like this.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

What do you mean by "pushes costs to the extreme?" I'm not trying to sound annoying, but I want to make sure I accurately understand what 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

arguments you're making (not trying to imply that your wording "as it is" is inaccurate or anything, I just want to make sure I'm getting 2/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

disproportionate share of costs? Do you mean costs for people? Health care providers? All of the above? 4/4

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it). Do you mean that costs have risen extremely much? Do you mean that the extreme tails of the population distribution are covering a 3/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And also rigged in that when ACA went into affect companies wanted no loss in profits, so prices jumped to compensate.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

But premiums had been jumping for a decade before the ACA was implemented. And there were several key aspects of the ACA that have been 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

undermined in other ways (key example: under-funding high risk state pools after GOP gained control of the House). Prices jumped at first 2/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

aren't a particularly moral bunch, but that isn't really evidence for "rigging." 6/6

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

rose after a major regulatory overhaul only shows a dynamic change. I agree that plenty of them rip off clients, and, as a bunch, they 5/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

some of the "bite" of the individual mandate was undermined by altered enforcement, state resistance, etc. The simple fact that prices 4/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not denying at all that there were many aspects that caused what happened, just saying ins companies weren't willing to take any losses.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

because those who were now getting coverage were the same people who had been kicked out of plans due to "pre existing conditions," and 3/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In theory, allowing capitalism free reign in healthcare reduces cost through competition. But they don't really seem to be competing.

9 years ago | Likes 2212 Dislikes 51

the theory never works, ever, in any product or situation. In the end one product or company will gain an advantage over others and ...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

destroy all competition to maintain dominance. In a completely free market economy this happens again and again, our history shows it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

This principle only works in markets where demand is elastic and barriers to entry are low. Everybody needs healthcare, but not everyone

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

can start their own insurance underwriting company.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because it's not free reign, it's regulated by ACA act.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Universal single payer was cheaper and better for decades, not just since the ACA.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Practical application of any of the theories and ideologies tend to not work as well as intended.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Its worth pointing out that US Healthcare is government run. Doctors are regulated. Its the PAYING for healthcare that is free market.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Almost like there isn't a free market in healthcare or something. Crazy

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

That's a very idealistic view of capitalism.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In theory a free market is great. Until you factor in the various shit unscrupulous bastards will get up to. That's why you gotta regulate.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They would compete if the government didn't require them all to cover the same things the same ways

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

Healthcare is inelastic, meaning you dont call around for prices when you have a medical emergency.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's an inelastic market, so they have formed an informal oligopoly. Just like John Nash predicted in that bar scene in "A Beautiful Mind".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's because there isn't any. Like Cable companies, you have zones for certain providers. Take away red tape and insurance will go down.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

They're in a race to the top.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Free market principles on a public good is a failing proposition from the outset.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Capitalism does a lot of stuff in theory.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They worked very hard to ensure they wouldn't have to compete

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In practice, they all agree to fuck you

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You are thinking of monopolistic competition, but this is an oligopoly, so if 3 or 4 execs decide the raise the price together, they can

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, under current laws, their profits are capped at a percentage of revenue. And in lots of states they need reg approval before price inc

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This would be the first time that companies in an industry carve out pieces for one another like cartels. Look at cable companies :/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oligopolies only have a few sellers, making each oligopolist likely to be aware of the actions of the others.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Makes it harder for new players to enter the field and means that they able to collude as an industry easier.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I.e. In a free capitalist market.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The problem with this idea is that the most effective way of running a business is through monopoly. It always ends that way.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

THEORY

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The ironic thing is that "socialist" health care countries use competition to drive costs down

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The local and state government's sanction local monopolies to keep costs up because of lobbying. Just like limited cable options etc

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Because they don't have to. Just like cable. How in hell is this not an antitrust lawsuit?

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

without intense regulations will allow more companies to enter the playing field.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What we have now cannot possibly be called a capitalist market. None of the same actors are looking at cost/benefit at the same time.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lol!!!!! Yes capitalism works for all industries. Ok!! Lol #werefuckendoomed

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Same as internet , now there is only 1 provider , it always turns into biggest fish

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because they get to pick and choose what they cover

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just remove capitalism and problem solved!

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

The whole "unrestricted markets always lead to best consumer outcome" theory is just flatout wrong, especially with healthcare and education

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Digging back to 10th grade American history (so I may be wrong), but IIRC that is a trust and was made illegal. Might be bribing govt blind.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They're not innovating either

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In practice that *absolutely does not happen*.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

No it doesn't. Explain to me how I'll shop around when I'm about to have a heart attack

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's better competition in industries where the barriers of entry are low. When they are high it turns into an oligopoly

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Your username is quite relevant to this comment, lol.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

There isn't a free market in healthcare.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

It's a cartel

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nice name

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

yea clearly capitalism IS the solution to lower costs everywhere, worldwide #irony

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Collusion not competition

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the fallacy of capitalism assuming companies compete, not cooperate

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

bingo!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Healthcare is actually one of the most regulated industries in the US, and big pharma company lobby so that it *stays that way*, making 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

fair competition impossible for smaller actors.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not when there is plenty of pie to share between all 6..

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Inelastic demand prevents driving prices down.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, the fact that healthcare is allowed to be profit driven is insane in the first place. My right to live should take precedent over money.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Think thats called a "cartel"

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We live in welfare state economy, no free market capitalism here.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Share holders provide capital, their part of costs doesnt go away under a different system. Say they buy the materials for the builders

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I work in the industry and I have to tell you: the most expensive part of health care in the US is being in the US.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Explain?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A lot of conservative ideals work great in theory....

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Healthcare is one of those industries that profits shouldn't factor. It's why it's generally nationalised in others.

9 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 5

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Jan 8, 2019 7:12 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Yeah sorry other nation's drs are paid just fine. And if you became a Dr to make money, you're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Probably because when you're having a medical emergency, you're not researching prices, you're choosing whichever hospital is closest.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Waaaaaa you're shirley you can't be serious, I had no idea. You mean to tell me they monopolized on a basic human right? Shocked and gasp

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You want an example of "free market" in healthcare? Imagine Comcast running your local hospital systems.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yea a lot of theories in capitalism don't translate to reality it would seem.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Health is not a commodity.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Not even close to capitalism. If any of us manufactures and/or sells a medicine we'll be imprisoned. Literally.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In theory communism is a peaceful people run economy where political opponents don't go missing

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

That's why we need a happy medium.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are significant distortions because of regulatory and 3rd party payer issues. Remove those burdens and it would work

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So are you saying capitalism only works on paper? *Class awareness intensifies*

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Regulations helped them avoid all competition, ask the FDA :D...The reality is that government isnt doing anything but creating monopolies

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

you can thank the FDA for that one :)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's a bit like asking each person to finance his own military. It works more efficiently if it's done all together for everybody.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Like a lot of systems in fact, they could work quite well in theory except they get corrupted.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Only if your theory assumes people won't behave like people.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's almost like capitalism only works as intended on paper before adding the human element to it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

not really, capitalism means that the people who charge the most and payout the least are the most successful. why for profit health (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 6

insurance is illegal/against morality in most industrialized nation. and was illegal in the US for a while too. (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

*Free rein.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can't be choosy when you are bleeding to death from your asshole. Free market doesn't work when something is an absolute necessity.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That would be the theory if we had literally no real-world experience with capitalism. Profits always derive from labour and consumer

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That's what they say.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In this scenario, capitalism is not the best way for these companies to make money, corporatism is. Limit money from controlling politics 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

and the best system goes back to capitalism. Competition then becomes the best way to make money. Legally speaking of course. It's 2/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

harder to stop illegal pay offs of govt. officials but that actually has consequences, unlike the legal ways we have to pay them off. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That theory has been wrong since the beginning of capitalism.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Right now insurance companies aren't allowed to sell across state lines which makes it somewhat similar to ISPs and limits choices.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 30, 2017 11:33 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't. dammit.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pretty much all research done shows that selling across state lines wouldn't do much to help the problem.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

A free marketplace requires the agency and ability to negotiate with multiple providers, including the power to delay a transaction as (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

negotiation tactic. You have neither, because you can't control when you get sick and need treatment now and wherever you are (agency),(2/3)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

nor did you go to med school and can negotiate competently with a physician (ability) (3/3)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Supply and demand doesn't work on something you need to not die, to most people that's worth infinity dollars.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The problem is everyone dies eventually.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's the theory behind Reaganomics (de-regulation/trickle-down) as a whole. I've been waiting quite literally my entire life (Reagan (1)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

entered the Presidential office and started pushing trickle-down and deregulation through Congress about five months after I was born) (2)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

to see this great "competition" that deregulation was supposed to bring. Almost thirty-seven years later, I still haven't seen it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Sounds like it was a lie.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not even in theory. Health care isn't a "normal good." If priced inappropriately, people die, so rational consumer behavior doesn't hold.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The problem is when you need such a massive scale to be competitive, it restricts competition immensely. Try to open an insurance startup.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Healthcare has no product substitute, high barriers to entry, inherently asymmetric info, is a necessity. For these reasons it dsnt work.

9 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 1

Dat health economics...nice

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And holy shit the market power and regulatory capture by the current US health companies.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No the free market only creates monopolies an exploitation.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Free rein, people. It comes from letting a horse (that thing you put reins on) to freely move about without any direction (from your reins).

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The problem is capitalism because everyone is out to make the most money. Uni Healthcare will not work if the motivating factor is money.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Doctors go through a ton of school for the money. There has to be profit for people to go through that much training.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I think they mean that the insurance side of Healthcare will have its drive for profits taken out. This post says profits for docs are good

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True dat! Doctors in not for profit Healthcare systems still make a lot of money. It is the insurance side of things that screws everyone.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True dat! Doctors in not for profit Healthcare systems still make a lot of money. It is the insurance side of things that screws everyone.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because they don't currently have free reign. They are unable to sell policies across state lines which would dismantle monopolized regions.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

yeah they seem to call each other up and agree on a price that won't hurt each other

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's like with Internet Providers: They've consolidated their companies to the point where they've carved up the whole country already

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Competition is hampered quite a bit by regulation though. The transition to a true free market system may be more effective but would kill 1

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Lots of people in the mean time. It's philosophically dishonest to call what we currently have a capitalist system though 2

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

No, it's not dishonest at all. It's improper for you to inherently equate a free-market system with a capitalist one. The two terms mean 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

different, somewhat overlapping things. The former refers to an allocation mechanism for setting relative prices of different goods, while 2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

a healthcare system "effective." 6/6

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

prices while production is handled communally) or a Nordic Model (one with strong safety nets, but private production), or anything in 4/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the latter defines a system where the factors of production are owned by private entities. You can have market communism (markets set 3/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's quite a narrow definition of capitalism, don't you think? Competition in markets is a pretty basic tenet of most capitalist ideals

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

between. As far as free market being more "effective" but ending up killing more people, I don't think you quite understand what makes 5/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1) love your username, quite relevant. 2) I think you misunderstand what I meant. We don't have a capitalist system, free market or (1)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Otherwise. We no longer have a system of voluntary exchange and we don't have truly competitve markets with healthcare. (2)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are certain things where "free reign of capitalism" has no business. Health care is not one of them. Denying a claim equals profit.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They misspelt 'colluding'

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah cause people can just not buy their medication if it's too expensive forcing pharmaceutical companies to lower prices, right?

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

Yeah cause people can just not buy their food if it's too expensive forcing farmers to lower prices, right?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What I'm saying is: The US healthcare market doesn't seem to be a free market due to governmental regulations influenced by pharmaceuticals.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes people can do that, they can grow their own food even.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're exactly right. A direct pay market is the only solution. For those that say it doesn't work, look at lasik eye surgery cost trends

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The NHS in the UK works well.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, for giggles. Next time you have an appointment, ask how much for cash pay vs insurance. Guarantee the cash option is less.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The competition seems to remain between consumer and provider, not the providers themselves. Unhealthy citizens are a cash crop.

9 years ago | Likes 569 Dislikes 7

"what would you pay to stay alive" seems to be their motto

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Especially if you can cancel their policy once they're past their profitability point. Insurers call it "rescission"

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Obama made this illegal. The Republicans want to repeal it.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

The Suicidally Conservative Republicans want to repeal it. The Normally Crazy Republicans don't.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

"what would you pay to stay alive" seems to be their motto

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Almost as if they made a deal with themselves to divide the country and not compete with themselves in order to control the market.

9 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 0

What were those called again? "Not-monopolies" but they had another name or something. was it trust?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Oligopoly

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Collusion?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Robber Barons?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Cartel?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes because you should "Trust" them to look out for you ;).

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

healthy citizens are the cash crop to insurance companies. Unhealthy are more cash crop for health facilities.

9 years ago | Likes 98 Dislikes 2

The problem is that when a company get too big, they start dominating and crushing their competition.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not accurate. Unhealthy citizens in the risk pool allow insurers to raise the rates on EVERYONE in the risk pool.

9 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 6

Sorry guys....

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Absolutely wrong. There is no plausible premium that would cover the cost of a majority unhealthy pool. It's literally basic arithmetic

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Unhealthy people allow insurers to set high prices. But where the insurers make their money is from healthy people. If you pay 3k/yr 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 1

This. I am unhealthy as fuck. one drug cost $27k last year. I payed roughly $5k in premiums.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

And only use $50 for annual checkup, that's pure profit for them. If you hit $10k in bills and they have to pay 80%, it's a loss for them.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Actually it's a textbook example of where capitalistic theory would also predict poor outcomes in an unregulated market.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In theory. But only in theory. Greed seems to trump economic theory though.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Because if you're dying, and there's a medicine that will cure you, you're gonna pay for it. So they can charge whatever and people will pay

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Why would you compete and cheat each other out of money? When you can all team together and raise the price collectively?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Right, but that's not a capitalist system, that's mercantilism and monopoly. Remember when us progressives we're about breaking trusts?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes. And then you guys took it to the extreme by saying all regulation is inherently good, and forgot that government systems are

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

corruptable. Then the insurance/big pharma companies bought out the regulators and now have government-sanctioned monopolies.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree with you, dude. No argument here. Just allow all competition and the market will handle it!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Look, I'm as liberal as the next guy, but collusion isn't mercantilism. And at least under Obama, the FTC and DOJ were pretty active in 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Challenging mergers and anticompetitive behavior in the healthcare industry. I agree with your annoyance at the system, I really do, but 2/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it's important to focus outrage at the proper targets. Otherwise we can hurt the system even more. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That theory is bunk - what actually happens is that the corporations act like mafia families, carving up turf to ensure their monopolies

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's what Reagan claimed when he let them become for profit. Before that it was seen as immoral to profit from sickness & misfortune.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Being for profit isn't the same as being free market. You need to let smaller companies compete, and allow people to import generic drugs at

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Half the price, suddenly healthcare is less expensive.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Healthcare companies in the states are more like a cartels they agree prices and don't compete over research

9 years ago | Likes 82 Dislikes 0

isn't that illegal?in my country it is

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Its called price fixing, but you need proof of collusion otherwise they could just say our cost is the same and we profit off margins.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But don't forget this all happens with the blessing of state regulators approving the rates they use.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

The first part is the economic definition of a cartel actually!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They agree prices with healthcare organizations. Just because you have insurance, doesn't mean a facility will accept it.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yep, that's the different between theory and practice. A simple "You stay in that area, we'll stay over here, and we both profit." 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

seems to be the norm, not "Hey, I'm coming over there, lower your costs or be forced out!" mentality. Nothing like a good 2/?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oligarchy to act like there's competition, when really there isn't. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Health care is not an elastic good.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

1/? Because you can't negotiate effectively on your own behalf for healthcare. If I sell a pill that keeps you alive and I tell you it costs

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

6/? willing to tell you no if the procedure or drug in question doesn't actually deliver good value or have a good shot at saving your life.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

8/? keep people from jumping ship to a different provider that they'll cover pretty much anything. Medicare isn't much better, because every

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

10/10 upset they are at government, socialism, and negros, and Medicare is forced to cover more bullshit.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

5/? is closest, because you do not have time to comparison shop. In theory, large insurance providers can negotiate better, because they're

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

9/? time they try not to cover some bullshit procedure or drug that's no better than placebo, a bunch of angry seniors write in about how

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

4/? can offer as many discounts on emergency bypass surgery as they feel like, if you have a heart attack, you'll go to whichever hospital

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

7/? In practice, no one actually understands what any insurance plan does or does not cover, and insurance companies are so desperate to

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2/? $5 a month, you'll pay the $5 a month. If instead I tell you it costs $5,000 a month, you'll find a way to pay $5,000 a month. Or Die.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

3/? This is called "inelastic demand", and it's a sign that the market in question will not respond well to free market forces. A hospital

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

i think economic theory has been proven wrong often enough we can start calling it conjecture. patents wreck economic markettheory

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 8

Empirical economics is better, no doubt, but actually: economic theory predicts that healthcare would fail in an unregulated market.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not wrong but over simplified. A unregulated marked is as free as a society without rules. You do not get freedom but despotism.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Well, it's based on the assumption that humans are rational...

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

Rational in the sense that if people make decisions it's because they believe the benefits out weigh the costs

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

they are for the most part, but its perfectly possible, and some economits point to this for individual selfinterest to add up to a shitshow

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think he means informed, a lot of shit gets big because idiots fall for adds

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

often ppl will buy shit ads have hyped. that is rational if your preference is social status fx

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Capitalism doesn't work in practice.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Well, technically speaking, all of the modern times' most economically and socially succesful countries have been capitalist. That said, 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

.. it'd be stupid and fallacous to ignore that these countries, USA included, also have had strong government and taxing involved. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You can have a strong government and still be capitalist (eg state capitalism). You can have a mutualist market economy without capitalism.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Right, but basically all of the most succesful countries in what goes to general welfare, education level, etc, are capitalist + strong gov.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And all of the worst ones. Capitalism and strong government are interrelated in the accumulation of power, of course they are successful.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That theory only works if buyers fully understand the product. Insurance is so complicated that even smart customers are easily fooled.

9 years ago | Likes 428 Dislikes 20

competition works but the richest men america has ever had got that way by killing all competition therefore thats what people try to do

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Got have that nanny state government come in and help!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

One of the many reasons why they should be NPOs. Then the competition would be between the companies to offer customers better service.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It also only works with healthy market entry and a robust selection of competitors with no collusion. So. It practically never works.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Government has been fucking around with this since the '40s. Let's give the Free Market a shot, eh?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not to mention government regs that protect the (shared) monopoly

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He explains it so well. https://youtu.be/09RvU9_m30Q

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It is intentionally artificially complicated to make it hard for consumers to understand!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't have to worry about what healthcare to get because I can afford any of them

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The theory doesn't even work then. Competition only works in a narrow range of non-essential goods & services when highly regulated.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That and, you know, it's not a commodity that you can just choose not to buy. You're in no position to bargain.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Problem number one: most people think they're buying health care but they're usually only buying health insurance.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No one knew how complicated it could be! SAD.

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 1

Not only that capitalism does not have free reign in the health insurance market

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And since it's a service, the ongoing quality is dependent on the providers. What you bought may not be what you get.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

as someone liceansed to sell insurance i dont understand it either

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

that and if any one insurance company tried to undercut the rest they'd get bough out from underneath themselves and prices would go back up

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And you as the consumer don't choose. Your employer does.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Problem number one: most people think they're buying health care but they're usually only buying health insurance.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As someone who works as an analyst in the industry, many in the industry don't understand how complex it is

9 years ago | Likes 141 Dislikes 0

As someone getting a PhD in the industry, the lack of understanding is scary in all settings. Health care is very complex

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

But it doesn't need to be.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Eh. It seems more like a tangle of headphone wires that regardless of the section you pull, seem to tangle themselves worse with each effort

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"who could know insurance is so complicated"

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Plus each group policy takes away individuals from choosing.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You hardly ever see the costs beforehand. You often don't get to choose a hospital in an emergency or due to insurance, either.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

I found out that one the hard way, few thousand dollars in medical debt for a bust internal hemorrhoid.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's almost like car work just without the estimate beforehand and it's your life on the line sometimes.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

New business model: assume your customer is stupid! ...that's actually not a bad idea.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also many traditional rules of economics don't apply, nobody is going to choose not to save their own life, no matter the cost.

9 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 2

Exactly.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Jokes on you, I'd gladly choose not life.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As an economist: The theory works in an environment of perfect competition, which is one where there are no barriers to entry for a new co.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The theory does not work because sick people have to buy at any price, no need for new co do any better than old.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As a counter-example, you should check out the German health insurance industry. Their market is set up for easy entry and high competition.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You also need perfect information. But healthcare is so complicated no consumer has it. So we get fleeced and cheated.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

IMO, you guys should be trying to clone the German system. It seems the most compatible with Yank sensitivities and objectives to me.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Also, we have no choice in where we go to have a service done. Good luck price shopping when you dont even know what other options exist

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Healthcare "networks" are set up by insurance companies/HMOs specifically to reduce competition and fix prices.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

This makes zero sense. A network is merely a set of providers included in your benefit package whether hmo/ppo/etc. Narrow networks reduce $

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

for the patient. A choice in networks and more specialized networks are good for consumers. Read your EOB for a basic definition of 'network

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

...What? Networks have nothing to do with reducing competition...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You can see a doc who isn't "in network," but you're gonna pay more out of pocket, even if his rates are lower. Because collusion is awesome

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That's not collusion though, that's vertical contracting. Insurance companies don't provide the care directly themselves, so they 1/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

negotiate contracts with those who do. I'm failing to see how that's "reducing competition" 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

in practice, allowing capitalism free reign destroys the environment, and exploits all resources incl. people. duh, it's so effing obvious!

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 6

Shit, in theory it does that too. Fucking tragedy of the commons.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Not necessarily, it depends on what the value of sustainability, etc. is.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Could argue that companies like Tesla are poised to make a ton of money with greener technologies.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

And work being done on the quantum level in computing is having impact on our ability to manage power and build efficient infrastructures

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

But would they be poised to do so without environmental regulation putting pressure on the market?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

At some point they'd have to. Hard to make money when your audience is dead.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

healthcare is a poor market for free market capitalism, because the demand is so inelastic. You're not going to compare hospitals (1)

9 years ago | Likes 99 Dislikes 5

If you are bleeding, it's too late.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

There's a difference between healthcare and high risk insurance. That detail is what people need to understand

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thank you

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And I've never seen a hospital list prices for anything until I've already received the service and am forced to pay the amount.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Right!!! This should be law.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

while you're bleeding out. (2)

9 years ago | Likes 61 Dislikes 2

No, but you will when you have non-emergency issues. I sure as hell did.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Right but for non-emergency services listing prices would go a long way. Prices for an MRI even in the same town are hugely different

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And what about devices and medicines? If you have cancer and a doctor says that the only drug for you is only made by one manufacturer...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

because they hold a patent on it, then they are free to charge however much they feel like. Their argument is you are paying for R&D, but...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0