"The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by ninefivezero, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. ivwshane

    ivwshane We are all old school!

    Messages:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    That's one of the reasons I support a public option (as in government option) because unlike corporations the people, when they are willing, can change or affect policy through elected officials.

    If capitalism worked the way it was supposed to, people would be able to "vote" for the right product or the "good" company. Unfortunately as 950 pointed out, in theory capitalism works but in reality, like communism, it doesn't work.
  2. Commissar Smersh

    Commissar Smersh 2020 Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,847
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Nuevo Springfield
    Obviously they're not amazing examples, but it's supposed to be something along the lines of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It's supposed to be created and initially funded by the government and spun off as it's own entity though I'm sure like the USPS and FM/FM it will still be subject to government oversight. There's an article up on wikipedia if you want to read more about them.

    Great, now when I read MSP's posts they're going to be proceeded by a dramatic: "I am MSP, keeper of all that is moderate!"
  3. ninefivezero

    ninefivezero infinite resolution

    Messages:
    12,314
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Somewhere on earth.
    That's why I keep poking at MSP, he is so militant about his moderate status :p
  4. tex

    tex jive turkey

    Messages:
    4,177
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Location:
    ATX
    oh gooooooooooood, we need more freddie and fannie. fuck me, i am really against it now. aurgh
  5. ivanolo

    ivanolo Guest

    I've tried to make the point about models before, and I wholeheartedly agree with Fiddy. Models are always perfect on paper. For example, Representative Democracy sounds fucking awesome! I mean, I elect somebody and that person represents my interests? Sign me up! But we all know how that works out. I still prefer that to a dictatorship, though.

    A market without regulations is like a society without laws. Sure, some laws are BS, but we all put up with them for the greater good of society.
  6. Commissar Smersh

    Commissar Smersh 2020 Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,847
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Nuevo Springfield
    Well given that it shouldn't be serving stockholders and looking to boost it's bottom line, I highly doubt this "public option" is going to cause taxpayers to bail it out for shitty investments years down the road.

    I'd prefer single-payer as it'll cut healthcare costs by cutting out the middle man and letting doctors, nurses and what not maintain their income. As long as it's not Obama's make everyone buy health insurance "reform" I'll feel like we've made some effort in the right direction.
  7. ivwshane

    ivwshane We are all old school!

    Messages:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    Is that what single payer does? No more insurance companies?

    If so, where do I sign up?
  8. ninefivezero

    ninefivezero infinite resolution

    Messages:
    12,314
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Somewhere on earth.
    Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (duh)

    But even countries with single payer systems tend to have a small private market as well from what I understand, it is just relegated to those who choose to pay for more coverage than the national system provides.

    (what he means is that you are simply cutting out the middleman, not that one might not exist in another system)
  9. ivwshane

    ivwshane We are all old school!

    Messages:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    The issue I see with the single payer option (which is currently happening in medicare) is that it is open to enormous amounts of fraud unless there is also some sort of "watch dog" arm.

    The one thing our current private health care has going for it is that it is very diligent about keeping fraud to a minimum, after all it affects their bottom line.

    With a single payer option there is no bottom line to look out for and with the money coming from tax payers, where or what will be the incentive to be efficient and actively work to keep fraud to a minimum?
  10. MSP

    MSP Haunting a dead forum...

    Messages:
    29,575
    Trophy Points:
    78
    ^^^^

    What he said.
  11. smirnoff

    smirnoff Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    4,583
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    I don't see that as reason enough to hold the show.
  12. smirnoff

    smirnoff Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    4,583
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    Agree. No system performs like it does on paper (democracy, religions etc). None of them have ever been fully realized because human nature makes it impossible.

    I don't support public health care because it is better in theory, but because it seems to work better in reality.
  13. mistawiskas

    mistawiskas kik n a and takin names

    Messages:
    30,066
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Rogue Valley Oregon
    Great post Fiddy.
    No flames from me. I've been preaching this for years now. I didn't put it out there as well as you though. It's all true and absolutely (hardly) nobody wants to hear it or see it. I guess it'd fuck up thier trip or something. This whole system we have now (globally) started out as a good thing and has evolved into a carrot on a stick with the corruption one can expect from
    a world that puts too much importance on: "selfishness, greed, power, control".
  14. j0k3r

    j0k3r El Chupacabra

    Messages:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    http://localhost/
    Are you slow? Regulation has increased since 2002. That worked out just dandy for you didn't it?
  15. j0k3r

    j0k3r El Chupacabra

    Messages:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    http://localhost/
    Did you read the article I posted at all? Probably not, who is not reading now? I'd advise you to go back and do that.
  16. Eavanr

    Eavanr New Member

    Messages:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree. More accurately, I think this is non-issue. Coming from Canada, there is very little to no concern with fraud. Although so much of medical care is privately delivered, the issue of companies manipulating the system over charging is rarely seen here. I just looked at the website for the Canadian Health Care Anti-Fraud Association and all of the cases they refer to take place in the United States. This is not to say categorically that fraud does not happen in the Canada, but rather that it seen as an insignificant issue.

    I think the argument for a private health system being diligent about health care fraud is outright wrong. The United States is the world capital of corporate fraud, the place where World Com and Enron could and did happen.

    Additionally, medicare cannot be appropriately seen as 'single payer'. Medicare is but 'one payer' in a 'multi payer' system. The difference is important.

    And Tex, I would be fine with 30%.
  17. ivanolo

    ivanolo Guest

    I did read it. I stand by what I said before.
  18. j0k3r

    j0k3r El Chupacabra

    Messages:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    http://localhost/
    Right because the system we have right now works so well. I'll go back to my land of Utopian dream state.

    :roll:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hn6ad4_FzM
  19. ivwshane

    ivwshane We are all old school!

    Messages:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    I don't understand your argument. There is very little fraud in canada and the fraud that does occure comes mostly from the US, why wouldn't that translate into even more fraud here in the US if there was a single payer system?

    I'm not saying I'm against a single payer system, I'm saying that fraud seems like it would be the biggest issue with it especially when compared to the already carzy amount of fraud that happens with medicare.
  20. ivwshane

    ivwshane We are all old school!

    Messages:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    I used to like what Ron Pauls says but now everytime I hear him I just hear wishfull thinking and theories.

    The only thing I agree with him on now is his views on corporatism.
  21. Eavanr

    Eavanr New Member

    Messages:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me try and be more clear.

    People argue that medicare is problematic because it is open to so much fraud. They argue that private alternatives are less prone to fraud because these firms recognize fraud hurts their bottom line and will therefore work diligently to minimize it. Programs like medicare on the other hand are so susceptible to fraud because government administrators do not care as much as private entities do about costs.

    The logic here is that governments doesn't care about costs. This is too simplistic and empirically wrong.

    What I disagree with is the argument you are making, that a switch to a single payer system entails high fraud costs, like that found with medicare. Firstly, medicare is not 'single payer', as 'single payer' implies a system wide change. Medicare, in its current incarnation, is a government welfare program in an aggressive market that fails to provide for large segments of society.

    The case of Canada, with its comparatively low levels of fraud and single payer system, points to another conclusion. I don't know why this is. I don't think fraud is particularly endemic to either public or private health systems. If anything, I would attribute fraud to corporate culture and weak legal system in the United States. The United States is indeed, the heartland of corporate fraud (think Enron).

    And Tex, if you do not recognize the broad and sweeping deregulation of the financial and banking industry that has been occurring since Reagan, then you are sadly misinformed on the history of your country. With few exceptions, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley, the general trend in the United States, and indeed many parts of the world, has been deregulation. To say the current circumstances we are in can be attributed to some form of 'over' regulation would be a historical denial and distortion akin to saying the Jews committed a holocaust and brutally murdered six million Germans - a fantastical inversion of reality.

    edit - Tex I now realize that by 2002 you are referring to the Sarbanes-Oxley act and thinking that definitively shows the country was moving to more regulation. The act is a regulatory bill, no doubt, but compared to the broader trends of deregulation it is nothing. Further more, you would be incredibly hard pressed to argue that a bill the works to ensure companies don't lie about their earnings somehow contributed to the sub prime housing crisis and the broader financial collapse of 2008. The links just aren't there and only the most marginal economic conspiracy theorist would even try.
  22. ivwshane

    ivwshane We are all old school!

    Messages:
    6,633
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    I wasn't implying that a single payer system would increase the amount of fraud, I was saying that fraud would be the single biggest concern (as in all other issues are minor).

    The reason medicare has so much fraud is not because the government lacks the willingness to do anything, it's because the government goes through insurance companies to handle all the claims and the government simply pays those claims. Meaning, the insurance companies are the ones that have no incentive to prevent fraud, they get paid either way.

    I would assume that if we had a sinle payer system that government would continue to go through a middle man and that is where there is a lack of willingness to do anything about fraud.
  23. ninefivezero

    ninefivezero infinite resolution

    Messages:
    12,314
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Somewhere on earth.
    Thanks.

    This isn't a direct reply to you, but a comment on the subject in general.

    For someone to argue that one should not undertake in a single payer system because of the possibility of fraud is sort of like saying you shouldn't have stores because some people will inevitably shoplift. Personal responsibility is supposed to be sacred in America. Shouldn't outrage be directed at those who steal, rather than those who are robbed?

    And while fraud is and will always be an issue, again, I say look at other countries that have health care for everyone, in seems to be working for most of them. Is America somehow worse than other nations, or somehow less capable or less moral?

    And Ron Paul is an absurd ideologue with little basis in reality. As shane said, wishful thinking and theory. (not that he doesn't have some good ideas, he does, but come on...)
  24. MSP

    MSP Haunting a dead forum...

    Messages:
    29,575
    Trophy Points:
    78
    There's no example of a nation with the population size of the United States successfully providing socialized health care. Canada is probably the closest example, and we have 10 times as many people as they do. I would wager that if you added up all of the countries who do have it the total would likely still be less than 50% of our population. I'm not entirely opposed to socialized medicine, I just think it needs to be left to the states to control. State size is the size that has been shown to be successful.

    And, not to add a negative racial overtone to the debate, they also don't seem to share our inner city problem. We've got massive islands of welfare and entitlement floating all over this country, and socialized medicine would just make matters worse. In my humble opinion, I just don't see their employment and education numbers moving upward should we add health care to the list of things that are subsidized and provided for them. Why would they? I'm telling you 950, you're pretty isolated from this issue up there in Seattle, in the Midwest and South it's a fucking cancer.

    EDIT: Inaccurate guess about the population sizes, but still a valid point. The biggest population on the list is 1/3 our size roughly, and without the ghettos. This list includes everybody, I can't say which are successful and which aren't.

    NINJA EDIT: From my reading so far the Japanese system sounds pretty shitty, and at least partially because of the reasons I fear an American system - abuse and poor oversight.

    [​IMG]
  25. ninefivezero

    ninefivezero infinite resolution

    Messages:
    12,314
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Somewhere on earth.
    The thing about insurance is it improves with the size of the pool. The more people participating, the more risk is spread around.

    As for the ghetto problem, it's just too bad it is a problem we as a society created.