Why is health care such a mess?

Health care is either unaffordable (US, Switzerland) or literal shit (UK) or both.
What's the problem? Can free market help to solve it?

Other urls found in this thread:

kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/marketplace-average-benchmark-premiums/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=2014--2015--2016--2017--2018&sortModel={"colId":"2014","sort":"desc"})
npr.org/2017/10/16/557985873/iowa-tries-to-prevent-health-insurance-premiums-from-escalating)
desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/08/16/iowas-sole-obamacare-insurer-seeks-57-percent-rate-hike/574395001/)
kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-per-capita/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Health Spending per Capita","sort":"asc"})
medinside.ch/de/post/praemienverbilligungen-noch-fuer-2-2-millionen-menschen
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Don't bother asking here, you won't get any serious replies. I've tried having a sane discussion on here about the same topic and it never happened. But I'll copy and paste my previous writings on the topic.

public healthcare
public subsidies
excessive labor regulation
people being stupid as shit and buy into excessive consumerism
there you go OP, that is why

1/?

The current political climate is completely dominated by partisanship and games to benefit those who are currently in charge. The only reasonable answer I can think of for various states completely refusing to expand Medicaid is politics rather than reason. It seems fairly evident various legislators are allowing the massive premium increases because they can get away with it by blaming Obama/Democrats or Republicans rather than examining the information available and basing a decision off that.

The Kaiser Family Foundation provides an [Excellent](kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/marketplace-average-benchmark-premiums/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=2014--2015--2016--2017--2018&sortModel={"colId":"2014","sort":"desc"}) database regarding premiums, as well as charting them year over year. It is very clear that states with the highest premiums are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. And in many circumstances this is tied to a refusal to adopt Medicaid. Alaska, which used to be the most expensive state for health care in 2014 continued on this trend until they expanded Medicaid. The average premium in 2017 went from $926.00 to $726.00 for 2018. The premiums in the state of Nebraska have also risen quite rapidly, the premium started as $249 on average in 2014 but it has climbed to $767. Nebraska has completely refused to adopt a Medicaid expansion. By refusing to adopt Medicaid it has meant that the uninsured who are usually low-income are now taking from those who pay premiums albeit indirectly. As treatment will still be performed on those without financial means, the costs are passed onto those who actually pay. Similarly to how customers at a store pay the costs of damaged items or those that were stolen. As there is no way for a healthcare provider to recoup the costs from someone who is low-income as they have little to no assets, they just increase charges for paying customers.

However, a state with much more liberal ideas regarding healthcare such as Massachusetts have seen low-premiums maintained. Massachusetts has seen premiums go from $268 to $336 which is about a 25% increase from 2014 to 2018. The average long-term rate is 5.37% per annum, and recent years have seen increases averaging nearly 7%. However the inflation of healthcare costs in Massachusetts has been roughly 5% per annum since 2014. So it is very well possible that Massachusetts has "lower" premiums than they did before Obamacare. This contrasts to Nebraska’s YoY premium increases which have been roughly 41.6% per annum since 2014. By refusing to expand Medicaid and remove low-income uninsured patients, Nebraska is continuing to isolate those who actually pay premiums. More and more will opt to go uninsured and pay the penalty, additionally many young people who are healthy who would normally subsidize those who are less healthy will no longer be doing so.

Similarly however, the costs in a state like Iowa have also risen rapidly despite the state expanding Medicaid. They have risen from $253 which is comparable to neighbouring Nebraska in 2014, to $713. The largest increase occurred from 2017 to 2018 because [subsidies](npr.org/2017/10/16/557985873/iowa-tries-to-prevent-health-insurance-premiums-from-escalating) for health insurances ended. Due to unfavourable conditions in the state, many insurers have opten to leave Iowa entirely which has meant that there is very little competition in the state. Republican lawmakers in the state are attempting to secure waivers to allow for more coverage options, and a more open market in hopes of lowering premiums. The premiums in the state have increased the most after the subsidies passed under Obamacare have [expired.](desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/08/16/iowas-sole-obamacare-insurer-seeks-57-percent-rate-hike/574395001/) From $379 in 2017 to $713 in 2018.

Now if we examine the expenditure per capita on healthcare in the United States, these numbers although staggering can make more sense. In 2014, the average expenditure per capita on healthcare was $8,045. In Alaska it was $11,064 which would mean in an entirely private system without subsidies an Alaskan would [pay](kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-per-capita/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Health Spending per Capita","sort":"asc"}) roughly $922 per month for *full* coverage with no expenses beyond their monthly premium. In Iowa, this number was $8,200 in 2014 meaning full coverage would be $683 per month assuming it was spread evenly across the population. Now this is a difficult to fully determine as those with the most costs such as those over 65 are covered by Medicare, as are veterans by the Department of Defence. Additionally, there are usually small expenses covered directly by the consumer rather than by the insurer such as optometry, pharmaceuticals, and so on. So the actual cost pool may be significantly different in demographics and cost, however it is clear that regardless of this there *is* a high cost to healthcare.

The biggest differing factor between premiums in states seems to be the amount of subsidies given, the states with the highest premiums are those with the most uninsured, and the less government expenditure on lowering premiums. States such as Massachusetts which has extensive government involvement have low premiums because of high subsidies, states like Nebraska have high premiums because the cost is accrued directly by the consumer. The clear result with the healthcare system as present is that no matter what circumstance occurs, someone will pay the cost of healthcare for everyone. Whether it is the insurance payers, or the government through taxes. By allowing for the premiums to skyrocket, you are forcing more people to go uninsured and the costs of coverage continues to rise exponentially.

I am pretty happy with the German system..affordable,waiting times are ok, good quality care, can chose any doctor ect. we have both public and private.

because sick people is evolution, baby! totally unpreventable

>affordable
isn't health care mostly tax financed in germany?

>high subsidies to pay for
>no matter what, someone will always pay for everyone

This just means more taxes. Nothing about competition between companies to produce cheaper methods of developing medicine or other ways of treatment (i.e., actual competition) which won’t happen under one provider (the government).

Come on leaf

Those paying the tax burden are generally not the poor nor the middle class though. It's mostly sourced from people of higher incomes.

is not dependent on an individual's health condition, but a percentage (currently 15.5%, 7.3% of which is covered by the employer) of salaried income under €52,200.01 per year. When you earn more, you're better off with private. It was way cheaper back in the day, but its still affordable and it a quality system, I'm fine with it...for now

plus the whole family is covered.

>pay government to pay your doctor
>pay insurance to pay your doctor

Just cut out the expensive middle man and pay the doctor

>somewhat this
the state isn't the provider but it seems with these systems in place nobody has an incentive to contain costs.
but is the main underlying problem:
> humanism
i.e. the belief that everyone has the right to top medical treatments or
> complexity of the market for medical services
it's not a standardized good, every person and every illness is different. there is no way to assess costs as an outsider (principal agent)

>sourced from people of higher incomes

So instead of encouraging competition, just make the rich pay for it?

I think a big part of it is because we try to limit the risks involved instead of making it affordable. Theres a trade off there that can never be eliminated.

This. Part of the problem is the government is subsidizing horribly overpriced medical care (same thing with college tuition) and insurance companies talk down costs of operations. Everyone along the way of paying your doctor is taking their cut, driving it further up,

That’s all fine and dandy but the only way healthcare prices will go down is if companies provide are competing against one another to make their “package” more appealing to the consumer.

And if healthcare were left to the states to let private companies provide healthcare, you’d have various companies undercutting prices, hiring the best doctors to produce cheaper treatments, new and better technology. Competition, the champion of capitalism. The government won’t have any incentive to do any of the above as they would be the sole provider. This is why competition is key.

>pay the doctor
how much is that cancer treatment supposed to cost though? as a patient you have no clue. you don't know what the doc is doing at all he can tell you any fairy tale he wants.

aging population across the board in the west is the man reason

>Those paying the tax burden are generally not the poor nor the middle class though.
Proportionally the tax burden is shouldered by the rich but that doesn't mean there is no tax burden for the working or middle class. No one should be subsidizing the parasite class anyway.

Costs and consumption skyrocket in the absence of price as a rationing force. In single payer, the gvt is expected to ration healthcare to constrain the market. In Europe, it seems to work fairly well. In the US political climate, I doubt if it would. Consider the special interests, etc.

>And if healthcare were left to the states to let private companies provide healthcare, you’d have various companies undercutting prices, hiring the best doctors to produce cheaper treatments, new and better technology. Competition, the champion of capitalism. The government won’t have any incentive to do any of the above as they would be the sole provider. This is why competition is key
do you have some evidence that points to such desirable effects of a free market for medical services?
I agree that for probably any other good or service, capitalism yields the best outcomes but is this true in this case, too?

>(same thing with college tuition)
DISREGARD COST OF TUITION VS INFLATION OVER THE DECADES
THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL
DELET TIHS THEN GO TO SLEEP

This

those with 200k+ paid for 58% of all income tax revenue in 2015
middle class is drained as well

So can a car mechanic but somehow it works out.

alzheimer and cancer wont prevent you from having kids in most cases

>switzerland
>not affordable
hä was

My W2 for 2017 says my employer paid $22k for my health coverage and that doesn't include the $4,500 I paid. So that's $26,500 and I haven't even been to the doctor in over 7 years. My wife goes a couple times a year for "girly stuff" but that's it.

>unaffordable
>Switzerland
have you tried not being poor

the worst problem is the hypochondriacs.

medical science (civilization/technology in general) causes more problems than it solves. When doctors strike, nothing happens to death rates. 250k amerimutts die of medical errors every year. Think about that number for a second.

only see a doctor in case of an emergency.

2.2 out of 8.6 million inhabitants can't afford the mandatory health insurance and receive govmnt subsidies.
another 50% or so struggles with the horrendous bills.
medinside.ch/de/post/praemienverbilligungen-noch-fuer-2-2-millionen-menschen

Look up perfectly monopolitsic competition models. All competitors in this market can easily enter or leave, no one has too much of the market share (would thus become price givers rather than takers, which is not what the consumer wants). Under this model, companies can produce their supply (in this case their healthcare package) and if it’s low enough to reach a high smoking of demand (i.e, the consumer likes it enough to buy it), then both the company and the consumer can benefit because the consumer will get the coverage he wants and the company will have a steady consumer.

That is until the NEXT company finds a cheaper, better or easier way to do what the last company did. Now the consumer buys from the second company. This process repeats until prices go down to a comfortable level where both the consumers and producers get what they want, or equilibrium.

I'm, of course, not talking about you successful business men, doctors and entrepreneurs but about the general public.

it's not free market enough.
free market fixes everything because it rapidly grows and responds to prices quickly to meet demand.

There needs to be DIY options i would guess that at least 75% of doctors visits are only to get a prescription for a medication that you could probably figure out that you needed on your own if you were allowed to buy it without a prescription.

yeah, exactly
have you tried not being poor?

most doctor visits are a complete waste of everyone’s time. except for the moneygrab.

avoid doctors if at all possible. you’ll probably end up in some expensive useless surgery. the doctors have nothing to lose (he knew the risks...) and everything to gain (you saved my life doctor! + $$$).

the whole system is rigged even beyond the obvious pharma corruption

have you tried not being an Albanian piece of crap?

The poorfag is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a poorfag and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.

true and most stuff the doctor will tell you about the prescription is just info you could look up on your own as well.

healthcare services should be provided by private companies
If the state has any role, it should be simpy to provide vouchers to those who cannot afford insurance. The state should have no part in running healthcare services.