what would that accomplish?
Give everyone that doesn't have coverage through work coverage through the state government? Isn't that what you want?
If you look at the demographics of those that don't have coverage, they're either young and don't have issues that would warrant prioritization of health coverage, they're self employed and balk at the cost of coverage, or they're illegals. The young would be covered because they're generally poor, the self employed would still balk at the cost, and the illegals would still rip off the hospitals because they would be denied coverage through Medicaid.
I dunno man, the system as it is set up right now already covers those that are truly too poor to afford health insurance, the rest would rather just spend their money elsewhere. Maybe they should add Medicaid coverage to unemployment benefits instead of forcing people to buy Cobra. That would get rid of most of the sob stories.
If you look at the demographics of those that don't have coverage, they're either young and don't have issues that would warrant prioritization of health coverage, they're self employed and balk at the cost of coverage, or they're illegals. The young would be covered because they're generally poor, the self employed would still balk at the cost, and the illegals would still rip off the hospitals because they would be denied coverage through Medicaid.
I dunno man, the system as it is set up right now already covers those that are truly too poor to afford health insurance, the rest would rather just spend their money elsewhere. Maybe they should add Medicaid coverage to unemployment benefits instead of forcing people to buy Cobra. That would get rid of most of the sob stories.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What? How do you figure that one out? Some bizarre calculations going on in your head....Stingray24 wrote:
Why would there be savings simply because a greater number are paying more to use less? Competition would lower ticket prices.
The statement you make above is three fold, as you're reiterating what I said earlier.
Paying more - ticket prices are higher (way higher, year on year increases at around 10% above inflation), greater number - passenger volume is increased, using less - the number of services is decreased.
I simply don't understand what you're saying. Why would having higher ticket prices reduce ticket prices? I am not talking about hypothetical scenarios here, this is what has happened over the last 30 years in the UK. Saying what should happen in theory is not really relevant, because that isn't what has happened.
The whole point I'm making is that competition has not lowered prices. That this sort of public/private collaboration is a stupid idea. Either services should be provided by the government or privately - not a combination of the two. Whenever there is overlap things go badly.
I either think a healthcare system should be entirely run by the government or entirely run privately with no government subsidisation whatsoever.
Inflation? I have already stated that the increases are significantly and consistently beyond the rate of inflation.Jay wrote:
Inflation? Older trains require more maintenance. Union labor? Railroads in general lose money so I don't know why you are surprised. When they were public entities it was simply easier to hide the real costs behind subsidies and other stuff. The public-private railroad we have in the US, Amtrak, has never made money, but they keep it open anyway because of some stupid national defense argument. Either way, it's your mess and I really don't care, just like whatever we do in our own country is no concern of yours.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not surprised.Jay wrote:
I have no idea about any of that.
However it's shown very well how it makes sense for many essential services to be run by the government. The best example we see in the UK is the rail network, an example of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) - which is the worst way anything ever can be run and is exactly how the US healthcare system is run.
Since the government handed over the rail network to be privately run, the amount of government expenditure on rail has continually increased at beyond the rate of inflation. Ticket prices have also increased at beyond the rate of inflation. The number of services has decreased. The number of passengers on the service has increased.
So, with a greater number of customers paying higher fares to use fewer services you'd think there would be some savings wouldn't you? What you see is the rail companies making lots of money at the expense of everyone - including the government whose subsidies of the rail network have increased to something like triple what they were when they ran it. This is exactly the same scenario we see in the US healthcare system.
Union Labour? It's certainly a factor, but the same was true when run by the government. No change there.
The railways only lost a tiny amount when run by the government, now run privately they lose lots of money, covered by the increased government subsidies, whilst the private companies running them make substantial profits.
It's a plain, simple example of how public/private collaboration ends up with private companies doing everything they can to extract as much money from the government as possible. This is what is wrong with the US healthcare system (and loads of other systems, not just in the US).
The amount of money the US government puts in to the healthcare system would be sufficient for a national health service without private contributions based on the costs in other countries with a similar cost of living. So why is the cost of healthcare in the US so high? Because of private companies leeching off the government contributions to widen their profit margins.
It hasn't because the healthcare industry is still evolving.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole point I'm making is that competition has not lowered prices.
Currently, hospitals mostly treat you, pat you on the head, and send you on your way. It used to be a long, lengthy stay.
I think that technological innovation/procedures shortened the stay. And it continues.
The current system is such that some of these innovative procedures aren't covered. Eventually over time, these are covered by insurance.
My concern is that something like this system will hamper innovation.
How does that help anyone that the system is failing to protect right now?Pug wrote:
It hasn't because the healthcare industry is still evolving.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole point I'm making is that competition has not lowered prices.
If you want to increase competition between healthcare insurance providers, allow them to cover people no matter what state they are in, and remove the workplace tied insurance schemes whereby if you lose your job for whatever reason you can't remain in that insurance plan.
If you want to further lower costs, have the private insurance compete with government insurance.
Unless you think competition will somehow evolve?
I wasn't focused on that. My concern is that something like this system will hamper innovation.