Universal Orlando raising base pay to $10 over next year

One of my criticisms of healthcare in America is that the system we evolved, over the years, was a system where consumers had no incentive to reduce their costs; and those who couldn't afford insurance or didn't have a job that offered insurance ended up accessing healthcare in much more expensive ways.

In an ideal world, the market would properly price wages relative to the local economy. We don't live in an ideal world; sometimes it's appropriate for government, especially at the local and state levels, to establish minimum levels.

You better believe single-payer helps fix the problem. Medicare sets its prices, and pays way less than insurance-based services. They apparently just set prices somewhat arbitrarily, but other countries require some negotiation. As such, if you have the opportunity to sell cotton swabs to every hospital in the nation, you are going to do your best to do it for less than anyone else. We're spending 17% of our GDP on this stuff... way more than anyone else. Sure, you can argue the quality of care, but we're not getting "twice as good" for our money.

Also true: we spend much more on healthcare than any other nation, but we're much less healthy than many nations.

Some argue that Big Pharm, for instance, needs to be able to generate huge profits in the US as an incentive to continually create new, innovative medicines that they can then sell in other countries, subject to local laws, at a small profit. Maybe ... but I don't think so.

I can't help but think of other industries, for instance, the cell phone/smartphone industry. For years, those companies swore up and down that it simply was not possible to sell phones unless a contract was involved ... until the economy tanked. They all, suddenly, found a way to sell pay as you go plans at a profit.

There are a whole host of subsidies in the US for healthcare. Employers pay a portion of your health insurance premiums and you pay no income taxes on that amount. You get a deduction for the health insurance premiums you pay. Allows people to pay for medical insurance with pre-tax dollars reducing the out of pocket costs of insurance premiums. Some people can deduct amounts paid for medical care reducing those costs as well. The government pays premiums/for care for some people (more now under ACA). Couple that with deductibles and co-pays that tend to be relatively small and you distance consumers from the actual costs of healthcare thereby reducing any incentives on the part of consumers to help reduce healthcare costs. What other good or service is sold/delivered with neither the seller/provider nor buyer knowing the price of the good/service at the time its sold/delivered?

Basic Econ 101 dictates that if you subsidize something, you will get more of it and the price will increase. Yet there is shock and dismay when subsidies in healthcare result in higher prices. Common responses are calls for more subsidies (to make whatever it is "more affordable" -- has already happened in response to rising healthcare costs and skyrocketing college costs -- also caused in large part by increasing subsidies) and price fixing (single payer is a form of price fixing -- "negotiations" with one side of the table with multiple parties and the other side with the only game in town typically are not actual negotiations in any real sense). Further subsidies will just fuel the increasing prices. Price fixing doesn't have a history of success. Though each are easy to get the masses to support.

Other insurance industries have for profit insurance companies without skyrocketing costs. Same is true of other industries which involve necessities. And other industries driven by rapidly advancing technology. To me, the primary difference with those industries and healthcare is the way we have opted to fund healthcare.

Making a general argument about "subsidies," which for the purpose of this topic is a completely loaded term, and the suggestion they fail is a ridiculous argument if you're arguing against single-payer. Are you really trying to say that the rest of the world using a single-payer system does not in fact pay less per capita? Those aren't the facts.

Jeff said:

Making a general argument about "subsidies," which for the purpose of this topic is a completely loaded term, and the suggestion they fail is a ridiculous argument if you're arguing against single-payer.

Does it matter to you that it wasn't the argument I was making against single payer? Focus of my post even on single payer.

Are you really trying to say that the rest of the world using a single-payer system does not in fact pay less per capita?

No. And that you got that from my post is incredibly baffling.

Of course... it's always the reader, never the writer, that's the problem.

Consistent.