2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Darus Grey]

Lol dude you can't possibly believe this can you?

Yes, because we can see the evidence for it in other market system universal coverage plans and how they operate at cost savings of greater than 50% on this principle(France, Switzerland, Germany, etc).

Whether or not we'd actually see that as savings or they'd push it as profit is an entirely separate matter(spoiler: it probably wouldn't be the first one).

In the distant past when we had a huge healthcare debate, we went over how health insurance has the traits of a natural monopoly, and it's one of the few businesses where increased number of suppliers and competition actually drives up the prices for everyone.

So no, you may not realistically see the actual savings due to the nature of for-profit companies, but we can clearly see that the potential for those savings exist there; a single payer system would realize those cost savings due to its nature.

[Gredival]

Isn't stroking the hard core left progressives what Obama did though?

In the respect that he also sold snake oil in the form of a campaign based on hope/change/aspiration, yes.

It's no coincidence his maturation as a politician has led him to support Clinton over Sanders.

[Byrthnoth]

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/...699#.tf73tx8sp

srsly though a friend posted this and I think there's going to be a schism in my facebook feed tomorrow

[ringthree]

I'm not sure if I'm the only one with this feeling but does this feel like the worst possible presidential election in our history? I'm sure there could be worse but definitely not in our era.

What is "our era"? I am not even old enough to vote for Reagan and I can still think of several elections with worse candidates. Bush v. Dukakis? Reagan v. Mondale?

[ringthree]

Bernie's proposal to pay for it:



Note that many health care policy experts don't think that even all the above taxes would cover the expense.

Not referenced here, but I believe that this proposal is also based on a 5% growth rate.

[ringthree]

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/...699#.tf73tx8sp

LOL I was going to post this, but I decided it was basically just a blog, and though the beginning makes a couple of good arguments, the end turns into a rambling anti-Bernie tirade.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes

Lol

No.

But if you can find any study, analysis, hell even an op-ed even hinting that selling across state lines could cut costs even close to in half, in America in 2016, feel free to share it.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01....html?referer=

[kuronosan]

Selling across state lines is a slippery slope at best.

[archibaldcrane]

I mean fuck, Kaiser in California has 5.8 million customers alone. Switzerland has just over 8 million people in the whole country. But Kaiser needs to be able to sell across state lines for some reason to achieve a 50% savings that Switzerland achieves, and that's their only barrier to doing so?

It's complete nonsense.

[mallister]

kaiser has other issues going across state lines, specifically union issues/right to work states. it's kind of sticky.

[Minions]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politi...alo/index.html

Hahaha

[Zealot]

Yes, because we can see the evidence for it in other market system universal coverage plans and how they operate at cost savings of greater than 50% on this principle(France, Switzerland, Germany, etc).

Whether or not we'd actually see that as savings or they'd push it as profit is an entirely separate matter(spoiler: it probably wouldn't be the first one).

In the distant past when we had a huge healthcare debate, we went over how health insurance has the traits of a natural monopoly, and it's one of the few businesses where increased number of suppliers and competition actually drives up the prices for everyone.

So no, you may not realistically see the actual savings due to the nature of for-profit companies, but we can clearly see that the potential for those savings exist there; a single payer system would realize those cost savings due to its nature.

I was there for that, you persuaded me to change my stance. I had been very staunchly against universal coverage before that debate.

[Darus Grey]

I mean fuck, Kaiser in California has 5.8 million customers alone. Switzerland has just over 8 million people in the whole country. But Kaiser needs to be able to sell across state lines for some reason to achieve a 50% savings that Switzerland achieves, and that's their only barrier to doing so?

It's complete nonsense.

No, I even mentioned above it's not the only barrier, but it is a big barrier, the problem is that health insurance companies that can't cover the whole nation have to compete in smaller pools and can't as a necessity diversify their risk sufficiently(it's not entirely about sheer population either, but also geography, if your entire pool is in soCal, and SoCal gets hit by an earthquake, you're on the hook for a lot of risk vs SoCal being 10% of your total pool).

Do you understand how insurance works? How risk pools work? If so, then you understand that the bigger and broader the pool, the lower the cost for all participants.

If you understand that, then you can't also hold the view that not being able to cross state lines does not artificially increase cost. It's not logically compatible to hold both views.

Because of healthcare's natural monopoly tendencies, it's in the countries best interests to remove barriers to competition, let them duke it out, and then have several large national scale carriers emerge.

You then have the issue of an oligopoly, which you also need to solve with regulation(like other countries have), but ultimately inefficient national scale carriers are more efficient than the current system(again, something we can see repeatedly even in countries closer to our population size like Japan).

It's not the only inefficiency but is one of the biggest.

Not really interested in reprising the entire past debate, just re-stating my position on it. If you disagree with the general nature of the above, I assure you, you are wrong.

[Byrthnoth]

I'm pretty sure his debate was with the 50% number, not the fact that selling insurance would be more profitable if insurance companies were able to reduce geographical homogeneity (which is essentially the only remaining homogeneity in such a large market) of their risk pool.

[Darus Grey]

I'm pretty sure his debate was with the 50% number, not the fact that selling insurance would be more profitable if insurance companies were able to reduce geographical homogeneity (which is essentially the only remaining homogeneity in such a large market) of their risk pool.

If that's the case then I rescind the claim, 50% is just an arbitrary number. Point is the cost savings potential is one of the biggest cost savings we could have.

The other biggest cost savings would be to reform the AMA, they artificially restrict the supply of competent doctors in the country as a form of protectionism.

[Byrthnoth]

The other biggest cost savings would be to reform the AMA, they artificially restrict the supply of doctors in the country as a form of protectionism.

ftfy. The AMA's policies are clearly focused more on the restriction than the competency.

(but yeah)

[Dantrag]

What is "our era"? I am not even old enough to vote for Reagan and I can still think of several elections with worse candidates. Bush v. Dukakis? Reagan v. Mondale?

I was considering something like the past 50 years "our era" not necessarily our voting era. Mondernish America?

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah I'm just responding to the 50%. It bugs me because "sell across state lines" is practically the only Republican talking point there is for how to "fix" the insurance system, and while there's probably a little savings to be had there potentially, the idea that it is "the singular solution" (which cost savings on the order of 50% would imply) is looney tunes.

[Zealot]

It could also lead to a Thunderdome scenario where all insurance companies race to the bottom and ultimately the one with the lowest premiums and best coverage emerges triumphant, destroying all of the competition and emerging as a natural monopoly.

Ha ha, no, they'll absolutely collude with one another to keep prices high.

[dasva]

It could also lead to a Thunderdome scenario where all insurance companies race to the bottom and ultimately the one with the lowest premiums and best coverage emerges triumphant, destroying all of the competition and emerging as a natural monopoly.

Ha ha, no, they'll absolutely collude with one another to keep prices high.

The first isn't that bad because competition has a way of returning when you stop being competitive.

Which makes the 2nd seem much more likely assuming you can get enough to agree