if democrats are less efficient than market forces, why do they think they can help health care?

Question

Why would a government mandated solution ever be cheaper or more effective than a market-based approach?

The best answer will not mention:
- a "right" to health care
- the need for government involvement to counteract greedy insurance companies
- costs increasing so quickly only the government can pay for it

Answer 1

I'm sorry, Willis, but I have to invoke the influence of the insurance companies in this equation. Their position as intermediary between the provider and the customer does not allow market forces to function in the area of Health Care. Since market forces are not functioning anyway, the intervention of the government is only attacking a form of privatized socialism.

Answer 2

It depends on what you're marketing. 'Goods', such as cars, refrigerator, or a pair of pants respond well to 'market forces'. Roads and bridges generally don't....that's why as a rule these things are built with tax dollars via private contractors. Services are different as well. I suppose you could have a private police department, but market forces so far haven't made that happen. Some communities have city owned water and power departments that seem to run with great efficency and at lower cost than many or most private companies. No city has a private sewer and waste water company that I know of so market forces probably don't apply there either. You may well have a case against government HEALTH CARE, but nobody has suggested government HEALTH CARE. The issue is HEALTH INSURANCE....HEALTH CARE will stay the same. The private health insurance sector simply can't deliver this service to everyone as many people fall outside the underwriting rules and others simply can't afford the cost. Health insurance companies are in business to make money and if they were forced to service every single person either they would soon go broke or they would have to raise premiums to some astronominal level. This being the case, those with in insurance or pay cash subsidize those without insurance or cash. On the other hand a non-profit, public corporation could easily deal with the insurance needs of all Americans. By instituting a single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE plan we could eliminate Medicare, Medicade, the Indian Health Service and many of our other state and county 'free' medical services. When you compare the reality of a UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE plan against the propaganda against it private insurance always loses.

Answer 3

The current private insurance 'solution' that the right wing is all in favor of, ignores the reality that it is not working. The private insurance companies do not have your interests in mind. They could give a rats *** about anyones interests except their own.

They claim to be more efficient and lower in cost, yet they paid an average benefit of $6800 per person in 2005, the last year they have released data for. This for a select group of insured where they have 'weeded out' the bad apples. Those with the dreaded "preexisting conditions". Yet the Medicare program, that bloated, inefficient government program; provided care for an elderly, sick and all comers group, and only paid $400 more per person than the private companies paid.

IF the private insurers are so efficient, why did it cost so much to provide benefits for a reasonably healthy group? Is it because there profits are a function of cost (like in the real world), rather than a function of savings?

And you do not really choose your doctors and insurance company in private insurance anyway. You employer chooses, based mostly on the cost to him, rather than the benefit to you. IF your employer changes providers, you have to change doctors unless your doctor is in the new plan.

And Medicare adds about 2.5% in administrative cost to the actual benefits paid out to doctors and hospitals. But the private companies add 10 to 20% in added cost, mostly for the profits they are reporting. Has anyone bothered to notice that as you are squeezed with higher copays and premiums for less benefits, the insurance companies are reporting record profits to their stockholders.

Private insurance and HMO's have done only three things for the American people.
1)Lowered the pay to hospitals and doctors by decreasing the amount they pay for services. Leading to cut backs in services.
2)Lowered the benefits to the patient while raising premiums and co-payments.
3)Made a ton of money by acting as the middle man who can squeeze everyone else.

Take the profits of private insurers out of the equation, and you can spend the same money and provide insurance for the 45 million Americans that have none.

The simple truth is this: If Medicare had every American as part of it's 'Group'; and set premiums for private employers to provide coverage, it would cost only 60-75% of what private insurance is now charging, and would provide the same or better coverage.

So Mr Businessman - crunch the numbers - would you be better off paying about $4000 per employee to have the Medicare system cover all of your health care benefit cost? Or are you better off paying the current average of $4800 per single employee, and $10000 per employee with a family?

The only ones who loose if Medicare covers everyone - is the private insurance companies and their profits. BooHoo

Answer 4

you may help the Sate of Vermont's efforts to acquire waivers from well being and Human centers Secretary Kathleen Sibelius so as that Vermont can function a state-extensive single payer gadget for their very own voters. this form of form will the two artwork or fail. In the two experience there will be lots to learn for the different state that needs to evaluate establishing a single-payer form (alongside the comparable or changed strains) in terms of get admission to, decision, fee and the familiar of care as measured by employing healthful consequences. I view this as a states good difficulty and that i think of each and every state interior the union could be loose to run their very own single-payer gadget or elect rather to set their very own parameters for a completely, or in part, industry pushed well being care gadget. for my section experimenting with diverse well being care fashions and options without federal mandates could be a reliable factor for all human beings.

Answer 5

Your premise is false and makes no sense. Nevertheless, the current system is inefficient. 31% of our health care costs go to administrative costs. Those costs provide no direct health care to anyone. That 31% consists of insurance bureaucracy and paperwork. Medicare administrative costs, for instance, are quite low in comparison.

The “market forces” have not adequately addressed the health care needs of the population. It doesn’t look as if they are about to any time in the near future.

You can hide your head in the sand and pretend that all is well with our health care but that won’t make it true.

Answer 6

Because in reality it is not a market-based approach. Do you actually shop around for the best prices or don't care since your covered?

The present democratic solution is garbage because Hillary was lobbyed off.

Answer 7

Comparing a political party to "market forces" is silly, they are not comparable. Industry itself has agreed to health care reform in key states...MA, and soon, CA. They are sensible programs that give the people different choices. Far different than the socialism boogey man is coming to get you rhetoric so popular by the simple minded demagogues espousing "conservative" views.

Answer 8

It is about control. The liberals want the government to run everything. Liberals want to run the government. Liberals are not interested in the truth. They try to seize on what sells to try to buy votes.

Answer 9

because they are DELUSIONAL.
It's about making themselves FEEL better.
none of the entitlement programs have ever been properly designed because they are not designed to FORCE the recipients to become self sufficient and get off the dole.

once they get people on their entitled list the ones on the list are theirs body and soul.

It is form of slavery that once someone has this mindset you own them and since they teach their kids to go for it this is self perpetuating through the ages.

This is not a racist rant as the people I was thinking of are white like me.

Answer 10

Apparently you are not letting anyone talk about any of the health care crisis.