I'm at least a little sympathetic to the idea that healthcare costs too much -- not too much more than it used to, just too much full stop -- and that the ACA's not really made it cheaper. It's not structured to do that, but that doesn't take away the need for it.
If the Republicans or anyone else want to work up a way to tackle that, that's fine. Good even; I'd give them credit. They just don't get to shove so many Americans off a financial cliff while they're stuck at the "concepts of a plan" stage.
Can we just agree that even calling it “Medicare for All” creates a terrible branding problem? Throw the whole system of healthcare coverage out and start with a blank sheet of paper. Trying to optimize things around the edges will not work.
Hmmm . . . $35 billion to extend health insurance subsidies, $40 billion to bail out Argentina so Treasury Secretary Bessent's billionaire friends don't take a bath on Argentine bonds. At least the Republicans are consistent.
Hypothetically, if the USA were to somehow institute a single payer healthcare system, I wonder how long it would require before the broad public came to accept it.
Appealing to Trump could simply mean abandoning certain left-wing personality and presentation styles but it doesn't necessarily mean abandoning left-wing policy proposals.
This November and December, I will be volunteering to help those just above eligibility for Medicare enroll in the ACA. Consequently, in preparation, I have reviewed the expected increases in prices for medical insurance. Up to about 125% of the poverty line, there isn't much change but above that, the prices will go up substantially. I wonder if our elected officials know this or if they care.
Do all these politicians really believe they'll be granted entrée to Galt's Gulch when all the "looters" who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare are gone?
The capitalist utopia will have no use for politicians--just the one ruler who is accountable only to his wealthy masters, and whose job is to keep the working class motivated.
I'm not particular on the exact ramifications (public or private) provided that America provides a universal health care solution that controls costs. If Germany and Switzerland can do it privately with government instituted controls, why can't the US?
Thank you, Professor Richardson. The imagery djt creates tells me exactly what he thinks of Americans not of his “class”. Couple this with devastating healthcare damage, which affects maga as well as Democrats, and he becomes more and more clear. When someone tells you who they are BELIEVE THEM.
We can spend 40 billion dollars to prop up the Argentine currency but we can't afford 35 billion to provide health care subsidies enabling American citizens to afford health insurance?
As a Canadian I can not understand Americans position on health care. Health care is a right not a privilege and should be available to everyone. Yes we pay more in taxes but if you add up what most American pay in taxes and insurance premiums we actually pay less. Health care costs less here and although not perfect is so much better than what you have. Just look at mortality rates, child mortality rates, pregnancy mortality rates…all lower here. And our happiness quotient is higher. It makes sense that you don’t feel you have to make a choice between seeing a dr or eating. Yes I might wait a little longer for non essential surgery…but I believe US wait times are going up. I’d rather my health care was in the hands of the government..who have no pressure to make profits ..than in the hands of insurance companies who have little incentive to help the patients. Plus it’s just the right thing to do ..providing everyone with health care when they need it …in my province that includes prescription drugs and dental care. How can Americans not believe this …where is the empathy and humanity?
No kidding! Fellow Canadian here……. What exactly does the US not get about providing health care as a basic right? Such a wealthy and successful country and they cannot achieve this? Lacking empathy has to be part of it.
We pay no premium, and have good coverage. Sure the system isn’t perfect, and there are some delays, but when the chips are down the help is there. Last year my husband had a heart attack in our small rural community. Ambulance to local hospital/excellent ER care/medevac to tertiary centre/cardiology care including revascularization and CCU after care—all immediately done. He recovered beautifully!
And the cost to us: $80 for the ambulance transport and absolutely $0 for the rest.
Will we ever agree to becoming the 51st state? HELL NO
Free market arguments don't work in health care because health care is not like other services.
The best way to demonstrate that is to consider the one form of medicine where a free market works: cosmetic surgery. Someone seeking to enhance normal features is largely free to determine whether and when to have a procedure, how much to pay for it, and where to have it done. In other words, they can be an active participant in a market. (I refer here to non-essential treatments, not to cleft palates or removals of unusual growths.)
Things are entirely different when it comes to internal medicine. A patient is informed of a condition he or she does not understand but must act upon. Delay makes things worse. There's no "bidding the job;" no "elasticity of demand."
That's why the healthy subsidize the sick. My family and I have been blessed with generally good health. We're grateful to have been lucky enough to be among the subsidizers. At any moment, we could be among the subsidized.
Precisely. I work in property/casualty insurance, where buyers have considerable control over their level of risk depending on how they drive, how they manage their affairs, and how they protect their property (the last a costly but doable proposition in most cases).
The voluntary insurance model doesn't work for health care. That's because we cannot, on our own, manage the effects of age, genetics, and the random occurrences of infectious diseases and disorders. We can eat better and exercise, and incentivize better habits in those regards, but that has limited impact.
Again, I'm grateful for my good health, and feel obliged to subsidize those not so blessed.
Conservatism is a psychopathology. There. I said it. There's no other word for the insistence that free market principles must take precedence, even over the provision of necessary and public goods like healthcare, and even at the expense of people dying.
You must be thinking of actual conservatives. Today's MAGA conservatives believe in a market literally controlled by Donald Trump--who is doing fabulously well under the new system, and he's eager to share that winning and prosperity with his base as soon as he is crowned.
Apologies--not his base, as they are nothing. He is ready to share the winning and prosperity with the moneyed class who make America truly great. Everyone else can get by as well as they can.
I recall the phrase "compassionate conservatism." Markets can be a very efficient tool to allocate resources, but they have limitations (e.g., public goods and externalities). Markets cannot solve the problem of people who are hungry but without income. Another tool must be used. Tools serve humanity, they are not idols to worship.
I suspect that all, or almost, of the growth of medical care as a fraction of GNP, can be attributed almost entirely to the aging of the population. Not only do the elderly require more medical care per capita, but also the young, who have the capability to physically care for the elderly are also a smaller fraction of the population. In order to get enough of the young involved in health care their pay and benefits have risen.
I'm at least a little sympathetic to the idea that healthcare costs too much -- not too much more than it used to, just too much full stop -- and that the ACA's not really made it cheaper. It's not structured to do that, but that doesn't take away the need for it.
If the Republicans or anyone else want to work up a way to tackle that, that's fine. Good even; I'd give them credit. They just don't get to shove so many Americans off a financial cliff while they're stuck at the "concepts of a plan" stage.
Can we just agree that even calling it “Medicare for All” creates a terrible branding problem? Throw the whole system of healthcare coverage out and start with a blank sheet of paper. Trying to optimize things around the edges will not work.
Hmmm . . . $35 billion to extend health insurance subsidies, $40 billion to bail out Argentina so Treasury Secretary Bessent's billionaire friends don't take a bath on Argentine bonds. At least the Republicans are consistent.
That's what the Democrats are fighting for.
Hypothetically, if the USA were to somehow institute a single payer healthcare system, I wonder how long it would require before the broad public came to accept it.
Universal health care is more popular among voters than politicos.
What explains that?
57% say government should ensure health coverage for all in U.S.
53% favor health system based on private insurance; 43%, a government-run one
72% of Democrats, 13% of Republicans support government-run system
Similarly, sensible gun control is more popular among voters than politicos.
What explains that?
Note Bene:
12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016
07% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2020
But, Sanders loudly supports universal healthcare.
And, Sanders loudly supports gun regulation.
Appealing to Trump could simply mean abandoning certain left-wing personality and presentation styles but it doesn't necessarily mean abandoning left-wing policy proposals.
This November and December, I will be volunteering to help those just above eligibility for Medicare enroll in the ACA. Consequently, in preparation, I have reviewed the expected increases in prices for medical insurance. Up to about 125% of the poverty line, there isn't much change but above that, the prices will go up substantially. I wonder if our elected officials know this or if they care.
Do all these politicians really believe they'll be granted entrée to Galt's Gulch when all the "looters" who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare are gone?
The capitalist utopia will have no use for politicians--just the one ruler who is accountable only to his wealthy masters, and whose job is to keep the working class motivated.
I'm not particular on the exact ramifications (public or private) provided that America provides a universal health care solution that controls costs. If Germany and Switzerland can do it privately with government instituted controls, why can't the US?
Because "socialism."
Thank you, Professor Richardson. The imagery djt creates tells me exactly what he thinks of Americans not of his “class”. Couple this with devastating healthcare damage, which affects maga as well as Democrats, and he becomes more and more clear. When someone tells you who they are BELIEVE THEM.
Thank you, Mr. Cohn.
We can spend 40 billion dollars to prop up the Argentine currency but we can't afford 35 billion to provide health care subsidies enabling American citizens to afford health insurance?
Doesn't sound very America First, does it.
Great comments, but you're never too old for roll 'n' roll, TW. I'll still be listening to the Dead when I'm just shy of dead.
Not too old *for* rock 'n' roll. Too old *to* rock 'n' roll. But I still keep on truckin'. :)
As a Canadian I can not understand Americans position on health care. Health care is a right not a privilege and should be available to everyone. Yes we pay more in taxes but if you add up what most American pay in taxes and insurance premiums we actually pay less. Health care costs less here and although not perfect is so much better than what you have. Just look at mortality rates, child mortality rates, pregnancy mortality rates…all lower here. And our happiness quotient is higher. It makes sense that you don’t feel you have to make a choice between seeing a dr or eating. Yes I might wait a little longer for non essential surgery…but I believe US wait times are going up. I’d rather my health care was in the hands of the government..who have no pressure to make profits ..than in the hands of insurance companies who have little incentive to help the patients. Plus it’s just the right thing to do ..providing everyone with health care when they need it …in my province that includes prescription drugs and dental care. How can Americans not believe this …where is the empathy and humanity?
No kidding! Fellow Canadian here……. What exactly does the US not get about providing health care as a basic right? Such a wealthy and successful country and they cannot achieve this? Lacking empathy has to be part of it.
We pay no premium, and have good coverage. Sure the system isn’t perfect, and there are some delays, but when the chips are down the help is there. Last year my husband had a heart attack in our small rural community. Ambulance to local hospital/excellent ER care/medevac to tertiary centre/cardiology care including revascularization and CCU after care—all immediately done. He recovered beautifully!
And the cost to us: $80 for the ambulance transport and absolutely $0 for the rest.
Will we ever agree to becoming the 51st state? HELL NO
Free market arguments don't work in health care because health care is not like other services.
The best way to demonstrate that is to consider the one form of medicine where a free market works: cosmetic surgery. Someone seeking to enhance normal features is largely free to determine whether and when to have a procedure, how much to pay for it, and where to have it done. In other words, they can be an active participant in a market. (I refer here to non-essential treatments, not to cleft palates or removals of unusual growths.)
Things are entirely different when it comes to internal medicine. A patient is informed of a condition he or she does not understand but must act upon. Delay makes things worse. There's no "bidding the job;" no "elasticity of demand."
That's why the healthy subsidize the sick. My family and I have been blessed with generally good health. We're grateful to have been lucky enough to be among the subsidizers. At any moment, we could be among the subsidized.
Well said.
It’s not like, say, fire insurance on your house. Most people will never have a fire in their lives.
But most people WILL get sick at some point.
Precisely. I work in property/casualty insurance, where buyers have considerable control over their level of risk depending on how they drive, how they manage their affairs, and how they protect their property (the last a costly but doable proposition in most cases).
The voluntary insurance model doesn't work for health care. That's because we cannot, on our own, manage the effects of age, genetics, and the random occurrences of infectious diseases and disorders. We can eat better and exercise, and incentivize better habits in those regards, but that has limited impact.
Again, I'm grateful for my good health, and feel obliged to subsidize those not so blessed.
Glad I live in Canada!
Conservatism is a psychopathology. There. I said it. There's no other word for the insistence that free market principles must take precedence, even over the provision of necessary and public goods like healthcare, and even at the expense of people dying.
"Free market principles?"
You must be thinking of actual conservatives. Today's MAGA conservatives believe in a market literally controlled by Donald Trump--who is doing fabulously well under the new system, and he's eager to share that winning and prosperity with his base as soon as he is crowned.
Apologies--not his base, as they are nothing. He is ready to share the winning and prosperity with the moneyed class who make America truly great. Everyone else can get by as well as they can.
I recall the phrase "compassionate conservatism." Markets can be a very efficient tool to allocate resources, but they have limitations (e.g., public goods and externalities). Markets cannot solve the problem of people who are hungry but without income. Another tool must be used. Tools serve humanity, they are not idols to worship.
I suspect that all, or almost, of the growth of medical care as a fraction of GNP, can be attributed almost entirely to the aging of the population. Not only do the elderly require more medical care per capita, but also the young, who have the capability to physically care for the elderly are also a smaller fraction of the population. In order to get enough of the young involved in health care their pay and benefits have risen.