Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fill up own pockets? Charge up more or do less while charging same. No competition so no need to worry about customers going elsewhere.

But if the government has a monopoly on health care then there is no incentive to profit. Nobody running the system gets any personal benefit from it, any "profits" the system makes would just disappear into the government's general budget. And there certainly won't be any bonus checks for employees who manage to increase "profits". In fact, you might get fired for finding a way to increase "profits" without immediately passing the savings on to the customers.

All monopolies are bad, period. Arguing that one entity holding a monopoly is better than another entity holding a monopoly is like arguing that Person A punching you in the stomach is better than Person B punching you in the face, when nobody wants to get punched at all.

Government has zero incentive to do perform at its best and healthcare is no different in that regard. Nationalized healthcare would be politicized and subject to partisanship when it came to funding and policies, the actual workers would have to accept whatever wages and conditions the govt offered or not work and they wouldn't have any incentive to do anything beyond the minimum required. There are plenty of municipal and state depts. that I have to work with for my job that literally tell you that they don't process any new work after 4pm Mon-Fri even though they're open until 5 and on Fridays they usually stop processing anything earlier than that. Govt run healthcare would be a monopoly saddled with massive bureaucracy, little accountability and no incentive to maximize performance.

The only way you incentivize optimal service and budgeting is through competition because competition allows consumers to avoid bad businesses and let them go out of business if they don't improve. Monopolies, both private and public, remove competition and therefore remove incentives for peak performance.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We've all seen those league tables that have the USA as the number 1 country for healthcare spending in the world, but number 23 for quality of healthcare per 100,000 people, or something like that...

Something has to change IMO...

 whembly wrote:
What gets sticky, is determining what will be covered as necessity and what is elective. Who determines that?

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fill up own pockets? Charge up more or do less while charging same. No competition so no need to worry about customers going elsewhere.

But if the government has a monopoly on health care then there is no incentive to profit. Nobody running the system gets any personal benefit from it, any "profits" the system makes would just disappear into the government's general budget. And there certainly won't be any bonus checks for employees who manage to increase "profits". In fact, you might get fired for finding a way to increase "profits" without immediately passing the savings on to the customers.

All monopolies are bad, period. Arguing that one entity holding a monopoly is better than another entity holding a monopoly is like arguing that Person A punching you in the stomach is better than Person B punching you in the face, when nobody wants to get punched at all.

Government has zero incentive to do perform at its best and healthcare is no different in that regard. Nationalized healthcare would be politicized and subject to partisanship when it came to funding and policies, the actual workers would have to accept whatever wages and conditions the govt offered or not work and they wouldn't have any incentive to do anything beyond the minimum required. There are plenty of municipal and state depts. that I have to work with for my job that literally tell you that they don't process any new work after 4pm Mon-Fri even though they're open until 5 and on Fridays they usually stop processing anything earlier than that. Govt run healthcare would be a monopoly saddled with massive bureaucracy, little accountability and no incentive to maximize performance.

The only way you incentivize optimal service and budgeting is through competition because competition allows consumers to avoid bad businesses and let them go out of business if they don't improve. Monopolies, both private and public, remove competition and therefore remove incentives for peak performance.

We need to distinguish nationalized healthcare (NHS?) vs. nationalized insurance (Canadian model?).

The former healthcare providers is (mostly) government ran that is paid by collected taxes.

That later is socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens paid by taxes - but the healhcare providers are mostly privately ran. (I'm not sure if there's a government ran healthcare system in Canada).

I'm in favor of the Canadian model... imo, it's the best of both world, where the government collect taxes to create a socialized insurance (single payor or groups of socialized insurance), which provides "block grants" to regional entities (maybe by state) to be administered to the privately-ran healthcare system.

Then, they compete for those dollars.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fill up own pockets? Charge up more or do less while charging same. No competition so no need to worry about customers going elsewhere.

But if the government has a monopoly on health care then there is no incentive to profit. Nobody running the system gets any personal benefit from it, any "profits" the system makes would just disappear into the government's general budget. And there certainly won't be any bonus checks for employees who manage to increase "profits". In fact, you might get fired for finding a way to increase "profits" without immediately passing the savings on to the customers.

All monopolies are bad, period. Arguing that one entity holding a monopoly is better than another entity holding a monopoly is like arguing that Person A punching you in the stomach is better than Person B punching you in the face, when nobody wants to get punched at all.

Government has zero incentive to do perform at its best and healthcare is no different in that regard. Nationalized healthcare would be politicized and subject to partisanship when it came to funding and policies, the actual workers would have to accept whatever wages and conditions the govt offered or not work and they wouldn't have any incentive to do anything beyond the minimum required. There are plenty of municipal and state depts. that I have to work with for my job that literally tell you that they don't process any new work after 4pm Mon-Fri even though they're open until 5 and on Fridays they usually stop processing anything earlier than that. Govt run healthcare would be a monopoly saddled with massive bureaucracy, little accountability and no incentive to maximize performance.

The only way you incentivize optimal service and budgeting is through competition because competition allows consumers to avoid bad businesses and let them go out of business if they don't improve. Monopolies, both private and public, remove competition and therefore remove incentives for peak performance.

We need to distinguish nationalized healthcare (NHS?) vs. nationalized insurance (Canadian model?).

The former healthcare providers is (mostly) government ran that is paid by collected taxes.

That later is socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens paid by taxes - but the healhcare providers are mostly privately ran. (I'm not sure if there's a government ran healthcare system in Canada).

I'm in favor of the Canadian model... imo, it's the best of both world, where the government collect taxes to create a socialized insurance (single payor or groups of socialized insurance), which provides "block grants" to regional entities (maybe by state) to be administered to the privately-ran healthcare system.

Then, they compete for those dollars.

The issue with the Canadian model is that you can't nationalize health insurance because the federal govt can't dictate to states what companies can sell health insurance within each state. That's a states' rights, intrastate commerce issue. The federal government could try to incentivize companies to offer interstate insurance plans but the Feds can't force Tennessee to allow Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina to sell health insurance in Tennessee. Congress could offer block grants to states to run intrastate exchanges but that still doesn't expand the risk pool beyond the state boundaries.

 kronk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

My 84 year old grandmother beat stage 4 lymphoma. She's still independent, drives herself (mostly to the casino), and active. She received 6 children-sized Chemo treatments. She's been cancer free for 3 years.

Who are you to say she can't get treatment? With your dumbass death panel, she'd have missed the birth of 2 Great Grand Children, at least 2 more Christmases, and a Codex: DeathWatch release.

Death Panels are dumb and you should feel bad.

They should have a death panel for 30 years olds that still live at home with no fething job. Those are the REAL drain on society.

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fill up own pockets? Charge up more or do less while charging same. No competition so no need to worry about customers going elsewhere.

But if the government has a monopoly on health care then there is no incentive to profit. Nobody running the system gets any personal benefit from it, any "profits" the system makes would just disappear into the government's general budget. And there certainly won't be any bonus checks for employees who manage to increase "profits". In fact, you might get fired for finding a way to increase "profits" without immediately passing the savings on to the customers.

All monopolies are bad, period. Arguing that one entity holding a monopoly is better than another entity holding a monopoly is like arguing that Person A punching you in the stomach is better than Person B punching you in the face, when nobody wants to get punched at all.

Government has zero incentive to do perform at its best and healthcare is no different in that regard. Nationalized healthcare would be politicized and subject to partisanship when it came to funding and policies, the actual workers would have to accept whatever wages and conditions the govt offered or not work and they wouldn't have any incentive to do anything beyond the minimum required. There are plenty of municipal and state depts. that I have to work with for my job that literally tell you that they don't process any new work after 4pm Mon-Fri even though they're open until 5 and on Fridays they usually stop processing anything earlier than that. Govt run healthcare would be a monopoly saddled with massive bureaucracy, little accountability and no incentive to maximize performance.

The only way you incentivize optimal service and budgeting is through competition because competition allows consumers to avoid bad businesses and let them go out of business if they don't improve. Monopolies, both private and public, remove competition and therefore remove incentives for peak performance.

We need to distinguish nationalized healthcare (NHS?) vs. nationalized insurance (Canadian model?).

The former healthcare providers is (mostly) government ran that is paid by collected taxes.

That later is socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens paid by taxes - but the healhcare providers are mostly privately ran. (I'm not sure if there's a government ran healthcare system in Canada).

I'm in favor of the Canadian model... imo, it's the best of both world, where the government collect taxes to create a socialized insurance (single payor or groups of socialized insurance), which provides "block grants" to regional entities (maybe by state) to be administered to the privately-ran healthcare system.

Then, they compete for those dollars.

The issue with the Canadian model is that you can't nationalize health insurance because the federal govt can't dictate to states what companies can sell health insurance within each state. That's a states' rights, intrastate commerce issue. The federal government could try to incentivize companies to offer interstate insurance plans but the Feds can't force Tennessee to allow Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina to sell health insurance in Tennessee. Congress could offer block grants to states to run intrastate exchanges but that still doesn't expand the risk pool beyond the state boundaries.

Why can't you nationalize the health insurance industry in the US? I think that can work with Congress pass it as law, and the President signing it.

I think the mere fact that it's funded by taxes from the General Fund qualifies it as interstate commerce.

If the state (ins company within) wants to offer supplemental insurance, not sure how the Feds could stop them.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

My 84 year old grandmother beat stage 4 lymphoma. She's still independent, drives herself (mostly to the casino), and active. She received 6 children-sized Chemo treatments. She's been cancer free for 3 years.

Who are you to say she can't get treatment? With your dumbass death panel, she'd have missed the birth of 2 Great Grand Children, at least 2 more Christmases, and a Codex: DeathWatch release.

Death Panels are dumb and you should feel bad.

They should have a death panel for 30 years olds that still live at home with no fething job. Those are the REAL drain on society.

I don't feel bad at all. Treatment is expensive, and when there is a small pool of money, it only goes so far. Someone has to do without, simple as that.

But I guess you don't feel bad, happily eating your steak and lobster feast while the rest of your family goes to bed starving.

And those layabouts? How about we stop importing fething Indians to literally steal their jobs? Shut down the H1-B program, and they might actually take some of those STEM jobs we've been pushing, at wages that make it worth getting a STEM degree.

 kronk wrote:

Also, Triple Riptide players.

 whitedragon wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Also, Triple Riptide players.

*Raises hand...

I play Triple Riptide......

I now know that I am part of the problem....

 kronk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

My 84 year old grandmother beat stage 4 lymphoma. She's still independent, drives herself (mostly to the casino), and active. She received 6 children-sized Chemo treatments. She's been cancer free for 3 years.

Who are you to say she can't get treatment? With your dumbass death panel, she'd have missed the birth of 2 Great Grand Children, at least 2 more Christmases, and a Codex: DeathWatch release.

 whembly wrote:
I think this is useful on the context of this thread and why letting the states administer some sort of "single payor or NHS-style" healthcare:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

If one company screws customers too much customers can vote with their wallet and go elsewhere...Why pay X for worse service if another company offers better service at 90% price? Keeps companies at least from total screwing of customers because they would LOSE those customers. I sure as hell won't go to worse company "just because". Quality can be determined in advance fairly often and price is obviously well known in advance.

 whitedragon wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Also, Triple Riptide players.

*Raises hand...

I play Triple Riptide......

I now know that I am part of the problem....

Rosebuddy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

If one company screws customers too much customers can vote with their wallet and go elsewhere...Why pay X for worse service if another company offers better service at 90% price? Keeps companies at least from total screwing of customers because they would LOSE those customers. I sure as hell won't go to worse company "just because". Quality can be determined in advance fairly often and price is obviously well known in advance.

This is a flawed way of understanding state-run and state-financed healthcare because the point is explicitly to not be a customer. There are guidelines and rules for treatment and resource allocation and the incentive people have for doing a good job and making sure that there isn't a lot of waste is professionalism and a love for helping people, which are powerful motivators and happen quite naturally. There is less inherent waste in universal healthcare than there is in private healthcare because profit is a chunk of money that just disappears.

Viewing the world through the lens of a consumer is very dangerous.

 kronk wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Also, Triple Riptide players.

*Raises hand...

I play Triple Riptide......

I now know that I am part of the problem....

It's either you or my grandmother in this dystopian future inside JWangDD's head.

You'll have to fight it out with knives or spoons.

 Frazzled wrote:
When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

As it is a government funded and run program, it should be prioritized by voter. Sorry hipsters and unmarried 20 year olds but you losers don't vote. Us old farts will get the platinum plan but you...well we've had to make some cutbacks....

 Ketara wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

My 84 year old grandmother beat stage 4 lymphoma. She's still independent, drives herself (mostly to the casino), and active. She received 6 children-sized Chemo treatments. She's been cancer free for 3 years.

Who are you to say she can't get treatment? With your dumbass death panel, she'd have missed the birth of 2 Great Grand Children, at least 2 more Christmases, and a Codex: DeathWatch release.

Errr....we do have private care too? Odds are, she'd have had exactly the same treatment, only at half the price. The existence of the NHS depresses the prices of private care in the UK, y'see.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Considering the states that refused the medicaide expansion and kept voting red...yes, I feel pretty confidant at underestimating them.

Dude... the states who hasn't expanded are geniuses right now.

The who has expanded are going to have to raise taxes a feth ton or reduce services for everyone.

 Ketara wrote:
I really don't get the fight to the death over public v private. We have both here, one doesn't invalidate the other. If those who can pay want private healthcare, they can get it. Just like America. The only difference is that the unemployed and no-insurance jobs get healthcare as well.

This is not a bad thing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Considering the states that refused the medicaide expansion and kept voting red...yes, I feel pretty confidant at underestimating them.

Dude... the states who hasn't expanded are geniuses right now.

The who has expanded are going to have to raise taxes a feth ton or reduce services for everyone.

Why?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Considering the states that refused the medicaide expansion and kept voting red...yes, I feel pretty confidant at underestimating them.

Dude... the states who hasn't expanded are geniuses right now.

The who has expanded are going to have to raise taxes a feth ton or reduce services for everyone.

Why?

More residents enrolled in Medicaid means more money the state has to spend on them and that money has to come from somewhere so it's either cut funding to other things to free up money or raise taxes.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I really don't get the fight to the death over public v private. We have both here, one doesn't invalidate the other. If those who can pay want private healthcare, they can get it. Just like America. The only difference is that the unemployed and no-insurance jobs get healthcare as well.

This is not a bad thing.

Agreed. Competition helps consumers, monopolies (private or public) hurt consumers. Having the government in the marketplace isn't inherently a bad thing and done well can be very helpful to consumers. Having the government control the market is bad because all monopolies are inherently bad. The debate here in America ends up being binary because it's another negative effect of only having 2 viable political parties stripping nuance and compromise away from important issues and making them either-or situations. Two parties mean that the argument is dumbed down to the question of whether or not the government should take over everything instead of trying to figure out the most productive way for the government to be present in the marketplace.

 Frazzled wrote:

When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

As it is a government funded and run program, it should be prioritized by voter. Sorry hipsters and unmarried 20 year olds but you losers don't vote. Us old farts will get the platinum plan but you...well we've had to make some cutbacks....

 kronk wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Also, Triple Riptide players.

*Raises hand...

I play Triple Riptide......

I now know that I am part of the problem....

It's either you or my grandmother in this dystopian future inside JWangDD's head.

You'll have to fight it out with knives or spoons.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Considering the states that refused the medicaide expansion and kept voting red...yes, I feel pretty confidant at underestimating them.

Dude... the states who hasn't expanded are geniuses right now.

The who has expanded are going to have to raise taxes a feth ton or reduce services for everyone.

Why?

More residents enrolled in Medicaid means more money the state has to spend on them and that money has to come from somewhere so it's either cut funding to other things to free up money or raise taxes.

I thought the point of the expansion was that the FedGov was paying for it?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.

As it is a government funded and run program, it should be prioritized by voter. Sorry hipsters and unmarried 20 year olds but you losers don't vote. Us old farts will get the platinum plan but you...well we've had to make some cutbacks....

That's what Obamacare was trying to do with the penalties, etc. Except, for many people, the penalty is cheaper, and it's paid in April of next year. Those punks aren't entirely stupid, and they're voting against Obamacare with their wallets.