Defending the "marjet" at any cost.......even with no facts.
Indiana offered HSA's, which have patients save money in tax-free accounts (where it grows and remains theirs forever and ever unless theys pend it) matched with high deductible plans to it's employees. Employees began to respond to price signals, and medical costs per patient were reduced by 33% and expenditures to the state were reduced by 11%.
Safeway has instituted a program that gave financial incentives to people who engaged in healthy behavior by allowing price signals in the
insurance side of the market to work (Indiana worked on the medical side), and saw it's per-captia health care costs remain flat from 2005-2009; when most companies saw theirs jump by 38%.
Whole Foods instituted HSA's, and let's the employees choose what they want the company to fund. This institutes price pressure on the medical side (WF covers the high-deductible plan 100%), and their CEO points out that as a result Whole Foods' per-capita costs are much lower than typical insurance programs, while maintaining employee satisfaction.
Medicare Part D utilized market pressure on the insurance side, and saw expenditures come in at 40%
UNDER expenditures - the only such government program in history to do so.
Wendy's instituted HSA's, and saw the number of their employees who got preventative and annual checkup care climb even as they saw claims decrease by 14% (in one year).
Wal-Mart's low cost clinics and prescriptions save us oodles of cash. Wal-Mart reports that "half of their clinic patients report that they are uninsured" and that "if it were not for [Wal-Marts'] clinics they would haven't gotten care - or they would have gone to an emergency room". Walmart - reducing costs
and expenditures.
all of these utilize the markets to lower costs
and expenditures; and they are just the begining. Not using insurance to pay for every procedure, checkup, etc. reduces administrative costs, which in turn reduces medical costs - and as HSA's catch on (assuming that Obamacare - which criminalizes them - is repealed) we will see the positive effects of that on costs and expenditures as well.
Dr Robert Berry runs a practice called PATMOS (payment at time of service). he doesn't take insurance at all - but simply posts the prices of his services. By removing the cost of dealing with mutliple insurance agencies, medicare, and medicaid, the prices he is able to list are one half to
ONE THIRD of standard. That's huge.
what do all these programs have in common?
They use market price pressure. People start to make better informed, and more conscious decisions once they are compensated for doing so.
if S&D work then why do ALL OTHER WESTERN NATIONS ***NOT*** have it in HC?
That doesn't really count as evidence. :shrug: but other western nations are generally more socialized than the United States. That's why we are the worlds' dominant economy, and they aren't.
Thats funny, SNAP seems to counter lots of crime and revolution.
not really - it seems to provide a food subsidy to a few too many people, and probably lots of correct people, and contains a marriage penalty that discourages family formation and thus harms a rising generation of poor children.
But if you want to see what your view of supply and demand looks like when put into practice on "necessities" then I can't think of a better research project for you than to compare nationalized food systems to privatized food systems as regards access to and amount of food per capita.
In North Korea, for example, people eat grass and occasionally each other. In America, our biggest health issue is that we eat too much.
The thing we can afford is all the yachts, jets, $125 mill CEO's, all Streeet profits, and $500k Dr's.
Gov HC in ALL OTHER western nations works fine.......
As do price controls on all drugs......like in Mexico
the rest of the worlds' drug stores are effectively subsidized by the United States. If you like medical innovation and the notion of curing diseases, price controlling drugs is about the dumbest thing you can do outside of outright banning them.
as for all other western nations doing so well with it, if that is true, why do other western populaces like it so much less than we like our own system?
More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent)
