At this point I don't think the US is ready or even necessarily needs a full-fledged single-payer completely socialized system. I think three changes would drastically help the current situation:

1. A national electronic medical records system
2. Modifying profit structure in both health insurance and pharmaceutical industries
3. Insuring all minors in this country with health care

The bottom line though is that there is no perfect system. You have go give up something, whether it be cost, availability or new and expensive treatment technologies. The US can definitely make things better, but just like all the other systems out there, we're never going to make things perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 2. Modifying profit structure in both health insurance and pharmaceutical industries

forcing this on industry is perhaps even more 'anticapitalist' than nationalizing health care. At least with a national healthcare system private enterprises would still be able to operate their businesses without much government interference (that is except those companies whose business was eliminated because of the nationalization). In fact, it would give certain businesses more freedom to operate because an enormous liability potentially could be eliminated from their balance sheets (depending on whether companies would be required to contribute to a national healthcare plan or maintain existing plans).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 forcing this on industry is perhaps even more 'anticapitalist' than nationalizing health care. At least with a national healthcare system private enterprises would still be able to operate their businesses without much government interference (that is except those companies whose business was eliminated because of the nationalization). In fact, it would give certain businesses more freedom to operate because an enormous liability potentially could be eliminated from their balance sheets (depending on whether companies would be required to contribute to a national healthcare plan or maintain existing plans).

Not exactly. For instance, making health insurance companies non-profit would move the primary goal in money-making from cost reduction to market share. I'd rather have a health insurance company fight to make more money by looking for ways to increase market share than by looking for ways to deny claims. Non-profits, just like any industry, have a goal of running and establishing a surplus. However, when that money is dedicated to customers instead of share holders or executive boards, there is much less (in my opinion) conflict of interest. Executives and those working in a non-profit health insurance company could still be fairly well compensated, but to a limit and also without the burden of paying shareholders.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Not exactly. For instance, making health insurance companies non-profit would move the primary goal in money-making from cost reduction to market share. I'd rather have a health insurance company fight to make more money by looking for ways to increase market share than by looking for ways to deny claims. Non-profits, just like any industry, have a goal of running and establishing a surplus. However, when that money is dedicated to customers instead of share holders or executive boards, there is much less (in my opinion) conflict of interest. Executives and those working in a non-profit health insurance company could still be fairly well compensated, but to a limit and also without the burden of paying shareholders.

how would the government force insurance companies to become not-for-profit enterprises? The government could possibly influence companies to do so, but i don't see how they could require it - especially not from a political standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 how would the government force insurance companies to become not-for-profit enterprises? The government could possibly influence companies to do so, but i don't see how they could require it - especially not from a political standpoint.

They'd say, "we require that all companies in the business of providing health insurance become not-for-profit as already defined by the US government."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono They'd say, "we require that all companies in the business of providing health insurance become not-for-profit as already defined by the US government."

and that's when companies providing health insurance become companies that USED TO provide health insurance. Shareholders would demand either the liquidation of the company or the shifting of resources to other business lines. No company would continue to provide health insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 and that's when companies providing health insurance become companies that USED TO provide health insurance. Shareholders would demand either the liquidation of the company or the shifting of resources to other business lines. No company would continue to provide health insurance.

Why? Even if every current health insurance company decided to "pack it in," there'd be a huge market vacuum that would be filled. That is the essence of capitalism. Just because you remove the incentive of ridiculous profit margins doesn't mean a capitalist venture to make money by providing an in-demand service wouldn't occur. The Germans did exactly this to their previously for-profit health insurance sector and so far, the results have been pretty amazing (in my opinion).

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (Click on the "full text" pdf link.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...orld/countries/

A good synopsis of Germany as well as a few other major health care systems.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Why? Even if every current health insurance company decided to "pack it in," there'd be a huge market vacuum that would be filled. That is the essence of capitalism. Just because you remove the incentive of ridiculous profit margins doesn't mean a capitalist venture to make money by providing an in-demand service wouldn't occur. The Germans did exactly this to their previously for-profit health insurance sector and so far, the results have been pretty amazing (in my opinion). http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (Click on the "full text" pdf link.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...orld/countries/ A good synopsis of Germany as well as a few other major health care systems.

Because executives have to answer to shareholders, and shareholders would not be willing to allow the value of their investment to be eliminated. The very nature of a not for profit means that the owners can not profit (it is a requirement under IRC section 501). Thus, any shareholder value would be eliminated. This is not something a hedge fund, mutual fund, public pension fund, or other large institutional investor will allow to happen to its significant investment in an insurance company providing health insurance.

You're right that there would be vacuum, but it would be filled by newly formed not-for-profits, and the big boys currently in the game would take no part; although i suspect a large number of their executives would happily make the transition to not-for-profit land. During the time these newly formed organizations are being funded (which is another issue, who will fund these not-for-profits) and ramping up operations, there will certainly be inefficiencies and some sort of shock to the system. I don't think it would be a very smooth transition (unless it was long and drawn out).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Because executives have to answer to shareholders, and shareholders would not be willing to allow the value of their investment to be eliminated. The very nature of a not for profit means that the owners can not profit (it is a requirement under IRC section 501). Thus, any shareholder value would be eliminated. This is not something a hedge fund, mutual fund, public pension fund, or other large institutional investor will allow to happen to its significant investment in an insurance company providing health insurance. You're right that there would be vacuum, but it would be filled by newly formed not-for-profits, and the big boys currently in the game would take no part; although i suspect a large number of their executives would happily make the transition to not-for-profit land. During the time these newly formed organizations are being funded (which is another issue, who will fund these not-for-profits) and ramping up operations, there will certainly be inefficiencies and some sort of shock to the system. I don't think it would be a very smooth transition (unless it was long and drawn out).

I agree. It's not an easy or a quick fix, and regardless of what is done, there will be people left upset. That's why politicians are complacent to shift blame or simply talk big with no real action. The need for change has been known for the better part of two decades with next to nothing being done with much of that inaction based on fear from voter retaliation by politicians. There's a horrendous nirvana fallacy surrounding health care reform and it's basically meant we'd rather do nothing than make a change that might not be perfect, but be better than our current system.

I do think that more subtle changes, which I consider to include shifting the profit structure of health insurance companies, rather than major changes, such as completely socializing medicine, will be much more palatable to politicians and the US people. However, in order for these changes to have any real impact, there are going to be growing pains and there are going to be pissed off people.

gi

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I agree. It's not an easy or a quick fix, and regardless of what is done, there will be people left upset. That's why politicians are complacent to shift blame or simply talk big with no real action. The need for change has been known for the better part of two decades with next to nothing being done with much of that inaction based on fear from voter retaliation by politicians. There's a horrendous nirvana fallacy surrounding health care reform and it's basically meant we'd rather do nothing than make a change that might not be perfect, but be better than our current system. I do think that more subtle changes, which I consider to include shifting the profit structure of health insurance companies, rather than major changes, such as completely socializing medicine, will be much more palatable to politicians and the US people. However, in order for these changes to have any real impact, there are going to be growing pains and there are going to be pissed off people.

Very true. I agree with much of what you said. Unfortunately, complacency is the most prevalent attribute of most congressmen and it is also the worst attribute for congressmen. They are too afraid to take any action that might harm some of their constituents even though it is in the better interests of the people in the aggregate. In general, I think everyone wants something better for everyone, that is, unless they have to feel pain to get to that point.