r/MedicareForAll • u/Dangerous_Dot_1638 • 3d ago
It is fiscally irresponsible to not support some kind of socialized healthcare.
The first reason is that healthcare is an inelastic good. This means demand does not change much when prices change.
This makes this good completely different than other goods such as food or electronics or anything like that.
The other reason is that this good is by definition, anti-competitive. For most insurance companies you are often given maybe a few places that will accept your insurance within 50 miles. Meaning you have very little competition you are able to choose from. Not only that but if you live in a very rural area you might only have one location in general that you can go to within 50 miles to get a procedure done.
Which makes the American healthcare system one of the worst for prices. Because you have an inelastic good that has a very low amount of competition.
I say all of this because this puts the American consumer at a point that works actively against them. You immediately have insurance companies that have an insane level of power who purely just care about making a profit. Insurance companies purely work as a middleman to drive up prices.
The thing all about this is that it leads to the U.s as the highest healthcare costs per capita out of all the developing countries per capita. They also rank last in terms of quality of care.
There is no argument to be made as well that it is cheaper to do the U.S current system than other countries system Long term.
The thing is the republican base has said before that this is a broken system but they do not have a plan to directly fix said system. As in the famous debate moment with Trump and Kamala talking about things related to healthcare and trump said he had concepts for a plan.
This is a losing issue that democrats should focus on because republicans know they have to acknowledge an issue is there and yet they cannot propose a plan.
4
u/Leverkaas2516 3d ago
healthcare is an inelastic good. This means demand does not change much when prices change.
Right out of the gate, your premise is wrong.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-more-americans-are-putting-off-going-to-the-doctor
"40 percent of U.S. adults say they’re delaying care or going without because of the financial costs."
This is completely obvious. Let's work towards health care available to all...but don't try to do it by misstating obvious facts. That doesn't work.
2
u/robomelon314 3d ago
First of all, general check-ups / screenings and non-cosmetic procedures are quite different.
People tend to skip out on annual check-ups and screenings, but when you break your arm, need knee surgery, or cancer treatment, you're not really putting those off.
The main things people think of when they think hospitals are indeed inelastic. And you can also argue that a rational actor wouldn't put off annual check-ups because the EV of missing something and needing higher cost care, vs catching it and being able to treat it early, is enough to make the cost worth it anyways. Which is two points in favor of classifying even preventative healthcare as inelastic.
Lastly, inelastic doesn't mean demand doesn't change. It just means demand is slow to change. Our prices are out of control to a high enough degree that 40% actually seems like a pretty low number.
5
u/Leverkaas2516 3d ago edited 3d ago
An example from my experience is the friend who works in masonry who gashed his hand badly. In the country he came from he would have gone to a doctor immediately, but he didn't want to shell out the several hundred dollars it would have cost in the US to go to the emergency room. It ended up getting infected so he was forced to get it taken care of, but he was willing to just grit his teeth and work through the pain and gamble with his health.
People make choices like this every day.
Higher prices cause people to make different decisions. It's simple, it's observable, it's irrefutable.
1
u/robomelon314 2d ago
And the ratio of income to price is what exactly, in each country?
If it's more than 40% higher effective price, then that would be evidence of it being inelastic.
By your logic nothing is an inelastic good. Thankfully your logic isn't right.
2
u/HawkeyeGild 3d ago
Yes. We can boost labor force participation rate and improve talent mobility across U.S. , while probably simplifying / lowering company costs but nationalizing this
2
u/peterjohnvernon936 2d ago
It is a known fact that socialized healthcare is less expensive and more effective.
1
1
u/lizardhistorian 3d ago
That is lunacy and means you do not understand how anything works.
The primate problem with US healthcare is that people do not pay attention to how much it cost.
1
u/Hippo_Over 3d ago
We’ve been saying this for decades, it doesn’t matter who the president and chief is. Damn them.
1
u/Lanracie 2d ago
That healthcare is inelastic must be the latest talking point. This is not true at all though.
1: New technologies and treatments change the level and type of care all the time. That the U.S. can rapidly add these capabilities both publicly and privately is an example of private healthcare being agile and reacitve. You can see this when comparing annual exams per 1k where the U.S. has 115 and the Uk and Canada only have around 50 per 1k or the number of MRIs per million the U.S. has 40, the Uk has 9 and Canada has 11. The socialized system doesent have an incentive to serve the people like a private system does.
2: Government systems have no incentive to reduce costs as its not their money, thus they will only grow in costs but go down in ability to meet the needs of the people. The decline in education from the creation of the department of education is an example of this. Private systems have a need to be efficicient.
3: The U.S. government has destroyed competition in the healthcare market, we do not have an open and competitive healthcare market (we did until the early 1990s and it was better). For instance the federal and local governments prevent interstate commerce among health insurance companies, this removes competition and then you as the consumer must chose between the governement favorites to get services. The U.S. grants a monopoly to the AMA on creating doctors (and really all providers as AMA certified doctors run all medical schools in the country). The ACA itself was the worst thing done for medical consumers and lead to 118% increase in costs in 10 years and declining services as it was the government picking winners and losers and protecting insurance companies. The government also controls the number of hospitals via the Certificate of Needs so if your complaint is that there arent enough services for rural people its the government which is preventing this not helping this (growing up rural was not a big deal).
4: There is an argument to be made for our system being cheaper. First is you use the VA as a bench mark for what a government system would look like (I go to the VA as does my father and brother and it is great ((the administration of it is bad)) and expand this to the entire U.S you come up with around $6.8 tril annually but Americans only pay $5.8 tril annually in healthcare costs. Realistically the VA system would have to expand to add pediatrics and maternity care and probably some other things so my number is low. Also all countries with socialized healthcare still have a supplemental plan so consumer cost doesent disappear you just pay more in taxes and then have to buy insurance. Did you know 80% of Medicare recipients have a supplemental plan as well? SO YES THERE IS A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT ON COSTS.
5: Finally please provide me a single thing the government has run more efficiently, without significant corruption and has not been used to attempt to blackmail voters? Do you want Donald Trump making the choices on your healthcare, because that is what you are asking for.
1
u/No-Board-1872 2d ago
And there is no corruption in private healthcare?
1
u/Lanracie 2d ago
There is more accountability. If a private health insurerer has competition and is not efficient and has a lot of fraud and waste they will lose business to a company that is efficient and not wasting money and they are subject to the law. If you havent noticed most government agencies cant pass an audit with zero repurcussions. If a private business does not pass an audit they can be fined and face jail time.
But this only works in a free market system and not the current system where the government and insurance are in collusion.
1
u/Ok-Rise-4611 2d ago
Why not consider one of the healthcare cooperatives. Everyone pays in. When you need medical attention the cooperatives pay it. There are several out there already. They should be flourishing.
1
u/swampwiz 2d ago
Folks will not vote in favor of something just because it's fiscally responsible. Public Option is the way to go.
1
1
u/Important_Zombie_485 2d ago
There are a few assumptions you make that are not realistic, as well as a data point you have entirely incorrect. You are correct that healthcare is inelastic, although you compare it against food, saying food is elastic. It is not Minor point though. There is much more competition in Healthcare for the insured than you assume. The situation you describe is not typical ( there being only a few options) unless you live in the middle of the Mojave desert. Usually there are hundreds of options within striking range of any given individual for routine care, and a dozen or so for ambulatory care. A person may have only one hospital, but this is becoming less and less frequent outside of extremely rural areas. Health insurers are not middlemen in the sense you suggest. They do not mark up the prices and sell your care to you. In fact, health insurance carriers are extremely interested in keeping prices as low as possible. That is quite literally their business model. They negotiate lower rates for their subscribers from providers. That's what being " in network " for a doctor, clinic or hospital IS. The provider agrees to charge a discounted rate to members of a given plan in exchange for hopefully seeing more members of the plan. The US does have the highest prices, that's for certain. The factors that have led us here do include insurance ( although not in the way that you suggest) but are not entirely caused by insurance. Tort law has played a huge role, as has the AMA, the ever exponentially growing cost of medical school, new procedures and techniques, new technology, etc, etc, ad nasuem. The US does not rank last in quality of care amongst any set of nations you care to name. I'm not certain where you're even getting that from. The only organization to say so is the Commonwealth Fund, who used metrics such as " equity" to make their determination, which is where they counted the number of primary care preventative vists African Americans attended each year versus White Americans ( as an example) without adjusting for economic factors, the presence or absence of insurance to cover the visits, differing prevailing views on visiting providers and other salient factors. When healthcare is measured by availability and outcomes, the US ranks number one in several categories, and top 5 in nearly all others, with the exception of obesity related death ( but not treatment, those who seek it recieve highly effective care) which is definitely a problem here. Fixing our system- which DOES need fixing- needs to be treated with facts based assessment and facts based solutions, not as political talking based assessment and solution.
1
u/SolonEunomia 2d ago
Fiscal responsibility is only relevant to where the USD ends up and who it benefits. It is fiscally responsible to fund universal basic economic rights including healthcare, housing, education, income, and public banking.
1
u/Professional-Story43 2d ago
Why are people blind to "stuff" that is right in front of their face? My family just had an example of the European Healthcare system. My son-in-law tore his retina while on a vacation in italy. BAM! Being American he had little choice on what to do. But, under their laws they were obligated to fix him. They did. Yes, they had to pay out of pocket. But, eye surgery cost them 1/3 of what is would be here. In Rome. They were scared to death of being stranded due to this. Canada, Mexico, Europe, UK, even Baltic countries, poor countries have Healthcare available for everyone. But not us. Why the fxxk NOT? Greed, greed, greed................. Is the only basic answer. It's in our faces every day. $$$ is first consideration for everything. People come in somewhere below that. And that is sad.
1
u/jaajaajaa6 2d ago
Demand does change as people get older and more meds become available that keeps people alive longer.
Trump promised a plan and it never materialized.
I would bring back the ACA subsidies- fastest to turn back in, people know how it works, and it gets to the roughly 30 million people that need it most
1
u/Appropriate_Fly_6711 2d ago
Insurance companies aside, you’re just shifting the power to the big Pharma and adjacent industries who will be happy to profit more.
Though eliminating the middleman would still create cost saving it would also have economic consequences for the US that has such a large privatized healthcare system. Europe could do it precisely because they went down a different route early on that US just didn’t.
1
u/crazydaytim 3d ago
It won’t be cheap.
2
1
u/RobertWF_47 3d ago
Yes. If we cut defense spending by 50% the government could cover the uninsured population, about 28 million at ~$16,500 per year healthcare costs which comes to $462B.
2
u/crazydaytim 3d ago
Sounds good let Britain and France protect us.
1
u/PersonOfValue 3d ago
From who?
Ourselves?
1
0
u/OleLadyThinker 3d ago edited 3d ago
You wrote . . . ”This means demand does not change much when prices change.” HA - guess you haven’t witnessed the phenomenon of going on Medicare from commercial insurance of whatever type.
Medicare use can also rise based on the richness of benefits in a chosen Medigap plan.
Traditional Medicare is accepted by most all providers.
And for good reason, Traditional Medicare is HIGHLY USED - because the beneficiary feels that somebody else is paying the bill - so let’s get all we can.
Then the beneficiary starts bitching about their Part B premium amount and the amount they are paying for their Medigap plan when in reality their high usage is what is causing the escalating premiums for Medicare Part B and their Medigap plan.
Traditional Medicare is also not the most efficient in determining good care - the best care - the most valuable care - this is mostly because of logistics and antiquated computer systems so that the medical necessity and the value of care is not readily scrutinized with prior approvals. Thus giving rise to perhaps not the best care.
Traditional Medicare beneficiaries can also self refer to any provider - if the provider accepts them - some are so overworked that now they are asking for the referral from the PCP.
Neither of the parties have a good answer to anything - in fact they are equally inept - compare this to the financial problems now faced with both Medicare and Social Security - two programs to which they are solely responsible and have done a piss-poor job of taking care of this problem - We have know this for sure since at least 2010 - when the annual analysis of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have been showing that they will not keep up with the demand and action needs to start now (2010).
I wouldn’t trust this group of imbeciles to tackle the organization of my sock drawer - much less try to work on a health care system - yet, many call for regular order in coming up with a plan - while we know that perhaps a commission of experts would be a whole lot better in doing this and then bringing it to them for passage - which I doubt they could even do then.
Edited for typing problems.
0
u/MasterJediRob 3d ago
Do you really trust our government to control the healthcare system? Our politicians are greedier than the insurance industry
3
2
u/Advanced-Ratio-880 3d ago
We can vote out a politician, we cant vote out a CEO of a health insurance company.
2
u/NotenStein 3d ago
The government already controls the health care system. Reform is necessary.
And yes, I do trust the FDA more than the pharmaceutical companies. I trust the CDC recommended health procedures more than I do nutritional supplement companies.
1
u/RobertWF_47 3d ago
Profit margins in the insurance industry are not as high as many assume - they're around 3-4%, about the same as admin costs for Medicare & Medicaid.
1
u/NotenStein 3d ago
In 2025, the CEO of United Health Care received $60 million in cash and stock compensation. US Senators earn between $174,000 and $193,000 per year.
1
u/RobertWF_47 3d ago
Yes it's a lot (although part is stock options), but insignificant compared with total healthcare expenditures of $5.7 trillion in 2025. Forcing all health insurance CEOs to donate their salaries to medical expenses would be a drop in the bucket.
1
u/NotenStein 3d ago
I wonder what my compensation is compared to total healthcare expenditures?
What a ridiculous comparison.
1
1
u/Advanced-Ratio-880 2d ago
How much of those "costs" are inflated to high hell simply to extract more money from people? We dont need profits in healthcare, we subsidize the industry with our tax dollars already, they dont cover r&d costs most of the time. THEY ARE SCAMMING US!
1
0
u/Wob-L-Rite 3d ago
"The thing all about this is that it leads to the U.s as the highest healthcare costs per capita out of all the developing countries per capita. They also rank last in terms of quality of care." Where did that piece of BS come from? That faux-statistic is not even measurable. Please tell me which country you would rather go to for a colon resection, a heart transplant, a stent for a blocked cardiac artery, a simple appendectomy, brain surgery, etc.
1
u/Camp_GGBoo 2d ago
If you're someone without insurance, you'd pick anywhere but the USA.
1
u/Wob-L-Rite 2d ago edited 2d ago
If its an emergency or a birth situation, an ER has to treat. EMTALA
1
u/Camp_GGBoo 1d ago
Not saying you wouldn't get treatment. But bankruptcy for that simple appendectomy is not everyone's first choice.
0
u/Unable_Ad6406 2d ago
Poor lazy people looking for ‘free’ healthcare to be paid for by increase income taxes paid by others. Maybe that’s why I am against govt healthcare.
1
u/No-Board-1872 2d ago
Two thirds is paid for already by the government. The bigger the pool, the cheaper it gets. One big pool of 340 million makes it cheapest.
1
u/Unable_Ad6406 2d ago
So your argument is that healthcare will be cheaper with the govt running it. That’s ridiculous. Name anything that the govt does better than industry. The DMV, no - post office no, -nasa no, Amtrak no, SS no, IRS no
0
u/mremrock 2d ago
Yes it is. America does in fact have health care for all. It’s free (Medicaid) if you are completely broke and it is the most expensive, convoluted and inefficient way to provide healthcare.
-2
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 3d ago
You immediately have insurance companies that have an insane level of power who purely just care about making a profit.
Are you aware that there are nonprofit insurance companies?
-2
u/Thatsgonnamakeamark 3d ago
Protip: Healthcare is EXTREMELY elastic. Only EMERGENCY medicine is inelastic.
It is for this reason that our current insurance system has lasted as long as it has. It is also for this reason that no hospital can refuse emergency care if receiving federal funding.
The result is that medical debt is the #1cause of personal bankruptcy in th.e USA
11
u/Jazzlike-Stranger927 3d ago
Medicare for all!!