[kakacik]

Whenever people here mention to my critique of US healthcare how its now mostly solved problem now, its 'good' to see the other side and reality. It certainly doesn't seem solved unless you have a million or two just laying around on the account, while mortgages and kids tuitions are paid. And I can easily imagine a long term condition or 10 which, if unlucky in terms of treatment cost coverage can wipe out that sum in a decade or two, for a single person.

Seriously, how can you guys consider this acceptable. I am not of faith but doesn't bible teach to be kind to your fellow men above all? One would expect more adherence to such basic moral rules in such conservative christian society.

[kelnos]

> Whenever people here mention to my critique of US healthcare how its now mostly solved problem now

Who says that? I don't think anyone sane can believe that US healthcare is "solved".

[anon7000]

I don’t know a single person in my life who thinks US healthcare is good, so that’s weird. And many my peers a have good jobs with good health insurance. Everyone I know has at least one bad story about insurance, if you’ve ever had more than really basic checkups.

[AnthonyMouse]

The problem with the US system is that it doesn't know what it's trying to be.

If you did a socialist system then everything is "free" but possibly slow and expensive on the back end when the government isn't efficient.

If you did a libertarian system then everything is cheap but it's caveat emptor because nobody is stopping you from buying morphine for $10 from Amazon.

The US system isn't either one. It pretends to be a market sometimes but then has a bunch of rules to thwart competition. Doctors are required by law to do residency but the government limits the number of residency slots in response to lobbying from the AMA so there aren't enough doctors. "Certificate of need" laws explicitly prohibit new competitors for various services. Insurance is tied to employment to make it hard for individuals to shop around. Laws encourage, require or have the government provide "prescription drug coverage" to make patients price insensitive so drug companies can charge a huge premium for patenting a minor improvement or simple combination of existing drugs and have the patient will something which is marginally if at all better even if it's dramatically more expensive because they don't see the cost when the insurance/government is required to pay for it.

It's a big pile of corruption, because all that money is going to places. But then if you try to fix it, half the population insists on doing the first one and the other half is only willing to do the second one, and the industry capitalizes on this to prevent either one.

Maybe instead we should do both rather than neither. Have the government provide a threshold level of services, like emergency rooms and free clinics and anything more than that the local government wants to fund, and then have a minimally regulated private system that anyone can use if the government system doesn't satisfy them.

[throwaway27448]

I think you're trying to apply ideology where it doesn't belong. Nobody on earth would advocate for such extensive spending to facilitate agreement on financing. It's extremely, extremely inefficient. (But it does produce jobs, which makes politicians super horny.)

The market also won't assist us, as we can't exactly compete future treatment costs against unknown illnesses.

Merely providing emergency rooms and "free clinics" will ensure that people only use these services.

A public option eliminating profit margin seems to at least be sane, and ideally would starve private funding from existence. Any remaining options would highlight deficiencies in the existing system.

A schumpeterian system, if you must slap an ideology on it.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Merely providing emergency rooms and "free clinics" will ensure that people only use these services.

Emergency rooms operate by triage. If you're having a heart attack, you're going in right now. If your shoulder has been bothering you for six months, you might have to come back multiple days in a row and spend the whole day waiting before there is a slow enough day that you can be seen. There is then an obvious incentive to go pay a private physician to be seen immediately instead. Free clinics are similar: There are no appointments, it's first come first served, and then most people prefer to pay $100 to schedule an appointment rather than wasting an entire day waiting in a queue, but you still have that option for people with no money.

Emergency rooms are also a natural monopoly because in an actual emergency the primary consideration is which one is closest, which doesn't make for a competitive market. So it makes sense to have the government do that. Whereas non-emergency care (which is the large majority of medical expenses) would allow people to compare prices or make cost trade offs against distance or convenience etc., if we would actually expose people to pricing. For example by requiring price transparency and then having insurance pay the second-lowest price for that service within 100 miles of your location, but then letting you choose where you actually want to go and make up any difference yourself, or choose the lowest cost option instead of the second lowest and then put the difference in your HSA.

> A public option eliminating profit margin seems to at least be sane, and ideally would starve private funding from existence.

It's not clear how a government option that doesn't have taxpayer subsidies would do this any better than a private non-profit. There are many existing non-profit healthcare providers and they don't have meaningfully lower costs than for-profit ones.

The general problem is that "non-profits" and government-operated services still have money flowing through them and "profit" can be extracted in all manner of ways other than paying dividends to shareholders. The officers can just pay themselves high salaries, or whoever is in charge of the budget can take bribes/kickbacks to shovel money in the direction of the contractors or unions paying them off.

Meanwhile the nature of "profit" in a competitive market is largely misunderstood because of accounting differences. If a non-profit wants to buy an MRI machine, they have to take out a loan, and then pay back the loan with interest which they account for as an expense. A for-profit company might get the money to buy it by selling shares to investors, and then paying dividends to the shareholders instead of paying interest on a loan, which goes on the books as "profit" instead of interest expense. But you couldn't just replace them with a non-profit and then lower prices by the amount of "profit" they were making because then they also wouldn't have had private investment and you're back to needing the loan and paying the same money as interest to the bank.

The thing that requires providers to be efficient is competition, because then the ones wasting money or taking bribes have to cover the amount wasted/embezzled by charging more to customers and then the customers don't choose them because they have higher prices. But that's the thing the existing regulatory system goes out of its way to thwart.