[conanbatt]

That's not utility, but health outcomes.

What I truly don't get about M4A advocates or believers is why they don't tolerate a public option. Just let the state compete in the open market, and if you like state run , you have your and thats it.

[arcticbull]

Totally fine with it, it’s the MO for many European states, including France. Australia too. The issue for me isn’t puritanical, I don’t need single payer, what I want is everyone’s basic needs met.

That said if health outcomes aren’t the utility of a medical system what on Earth is?

[conanbatt]

> That said if health outcomes aren’t the utility of a medical system what on earth is?

i.e. You can improve health outcomes and decrease utility by banning tobacco.

[arcticbull]

Right, I don’t disagree. I’m still not sure how the utility of the health system isn’t health outcomes. You can make a case that they are interlinked, smoking and health, but that doesn’t really answer my question. If anything, to me, you're making the case that (abuse of) substances such as alcohol, cigarettes and all 'illicit' narcotics should be under the full control of the health system and not the criminal justice system. Similar to how Portugal handles it.

FWIW the big issue is that private companies don't want to compete with the state because the goal of the state is to provide quality care, not to maximize profit. None of the private insurers are lobbying for two-tier universal healthcare so they can show off their sheer superiority are they? You'd think if they were actually superior they'd love, or at least be neutral to, the introduction of an inferior competitor.

If you're so sure private cover is better why push back against the introduction of a public option at all? Welcome all comers with open arms.

[conanbatt]

Insurance companies should abhor any kind of state competition, regardless of the case for it, its in their interest. But being an interested party does not make you evil.

Government also has an interest, in fact a huge interest. If healthcare were socialized entirely, dollar-per-dollar it would increase the federal government's size by ~ 10% of GDP. Currently its 21%! It would mean 50% bigger government!!

And that means HUGE cash, and HUGE political boons. Sanders could become president by promising people a healthcare service he does not pay for or he is not responsible for its failure. And the government now will have some omnipotent ways to levvy taxes and then short-change constitutents by cutting health spending or quality.

The government is also an interested party, and it's stands to gain more power than ever with such a ploy.

I also urge not to believe that the state "does thing for the people" because it either fails to do so or it just is plain false. Please look at the real results of public education: it has terrible results even though "its in the interest of the state to provide quality education".

[arcticbull]

The idea that this is going to be more expensive/isn’t paid for is ridiculous because it eliminates all of the money spent by private corporations on what should be a public service. It’s crazy that the government was able to shirk it’s responsibility to look after people and place that unfair burden on businesses. That makes it harder to run a business, harder to start a business, and increases your total cost of doing business in America. It’s time to relieve businesses of the burden of dealing with their employees health. The money they were paying to provide that service is going to pay for it. Isn’t that what America is all about — small business?

It doesn’t increase the size of government, those are flow-through dollars, they go in one side and out the other. A huge amount of American healthcare is already socialized between Medicare and Medicaid. If anything consolidating these disparate services should represent an administrative efficiency. And even if, so what?

Yes the government can then change health policy, that’s the point. If they cut it, deal with it at the ballot box. Right now there’s zero transparency and accountability with private insurers, so it’s strictly worse. In other countries the government treats health programs as sacred just like Medicare.

The data shows it works everywhere else, it can work here too. Government works in other countries, it can work here too. I’m curious as a free market health aficionado why not pitch privatizing Medicare? How’d you think that’d go over?

[GabrielBen]

> The idea that this is going to be more expensive/isn’t paid for is ridiculous because it eliminates all of the money spent by private corporations on what should be a public service

This is just a plain criticism of capitalism in general. Does this logic apply to everything else? Like food? Housing? In practice we have a great example with public education: an expensive, unequal base level that americans avoid if they have the money to.

> It’s crazy that the government was able to shirk it’s responsibility to look after people and place that unfair burden on businesses. > . It’s time to relieve businesses of the burden of dealing with their employees health

I agree, although I would like to note that historically this made sense from an administrative standpoint. Back in the 20's, administrative work of insurance was like half the cost. It wouldn't be so expensive today with electronic payments and all. Its the same logic behind payroll taxes (those that work pay it) mostly because its easy to do, not because its fair or good.

Its true that businesses would love not to manage training people about healthcare, but then the government will have to do it and that won't come cheap. That will be an interesting challenge. The M4A plan of no copays no nothing, that would eliminate that instruction is a pipe dream.

> It doesn’t increase the size of government, those are flow-through dollars, they go in one side and out the other.

Hey come in.

<They are in a federal bank account.>

<They are processed by a claims office that decides what to pay and what not to pay> They come out.

Whatever claims are not paid, its money leftover for spending in whatever initiative the government wants. In fact advocates for socialized medicine like Sarah Kliff want that to happen so the government can set prices. Since its your only employer (no competition with private insurance) you say you accept it or you close down.

> If anything consolidating these disparate services should represent an administrative efficiency

And if it doesn't, whats the way out?

> Yes the government can then change health policy, that’s the point.

Maybe thats your point, but I don't want in on that. I dont want the government deciding for me.

So I dont want to go thing by thing: we disagree, you envision a government administration to be great and fantastic, and I see it as unfair and oppressive. Lets compromise on our different of beliefs: lets advocate for a public option. Government offers something, insurance offers theirs, they compete in the open market, you get what you want and I dont need to confront.

I do want some other things though!