Move archived pages to my own folder.

[minor]
2022-04-07 12:40:54 -07:00 · 2022-04-07 12:40:54 -07:00 · 50d6b5b71e
commit 50d6b5b71e
parent aaa7a9bdb1
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
--- a/voussoir.net/writing/complicated_topics_insurance/complicated_topics_insurance.md
+++ b/voussoir.net/writing/complicated_topics_insurance/complicated_topics_insurance.md
@ -57,4 +57,4 @@ BUT, that's not what's on the ballots. You know what's on the ballots? "Should i
 [footnote_text] So, why do I keep saying that tax-funded healthcare is okay? Isn't that exactly "giving up more money for the good of humanity"? This is an area where the tangibility, the line-of-sight to the cost, has a big psychological impact. Even though we can look at the government's spending of our taxes and deduce that X% of my Y dollars was spent on roads, and X% was spent on schools, I for one don't really *feel* those percentages. Taxes are more like a black box where money goes in and results come out. Case in point: if taxes were paid as itemized bills, and every citizen in the US received a separate "Bombs to Drop on Countries that Have Oil we Want" bill in the mail, they'd be shocked and outraged. But taxes aren't itemized like that, and the fact of the matter is we're all paying this Bombs tax already, but few think about it and even fewer complain. For the rest, it's invisible. If healthcare were migrated into taxes, I do assume it would wind up being cheaper, but at the very least it would be invisible like the Bombs tax and people would stop complaining about it so much.
-[footnote_text] Why do I sound so sure that a government-run insurance would be cheaper than private insurance? The government is not known for its [economic efficiency](https://web.archive.org/web/20200520042744/https://www.nber.org/digest/mar14/w19481.html "National Bureau of Economic Research (2014) -- Federal agencies spend 4.9 more in the last week of the fiscal year in order to use up the rest of their allocated budget, lest they be allocated less for the next year"). Firstly, private insurance companies have costs that a government insurance wouldn't have, such as advertising. Here are a couple of numbers about that ([one](https://web.archive.org/web/20200520043133/https://contently.com/2017/02/06/insurance-advertising-abundance/), [two](https://web.archive.org/web/20200520043015/https://www.iamagazine.com/viewpoints/read/2020/01/15/student-of-the-industry-insurance-ads-who-spends-what-and-why)). Secondly, and probably more impactful, I expect that if the government was the one paying out for coverages, they wouldn't give in to the pricing arms race game that hospitals want to play. Another technique the industry uses to reduce individual power is to create partnerships between insurers and hospitals, and to establish "service areas", within which you should go to an insurer-sanctioned hospital or else they won't cover the visit. Much of this wouldn't be possible when there's only a single insurer in the nation.
+[footnote_text] Why do I sound so sure that a government-run insurance would be cheaper than private insurance? The government is not known for its [economic efficiency](nber_use_it_lose_it.html "National Bureau of Economic Research (2014) -- Federal agencies spend 4.9 more in the last week of the fiscal year in order to use up the rest of their allocated budget, lest they be allocated less for the next year"). Firstly, private insurance companies have costs that a government insurance wouldn't have, such as advertising. Here are a couple of numbers about that ([one](contently_insurance_advertising.html), [two](iamagazine_insurance_advertising.html)). Secondly, and probably more impactful, I expect that if the government was the one paying out for coverages, they wouldn't give in to the pricing arms race game that hospitals want to play. Another technique the industry uses to reduce individual power is to create partnerships between insurers and hospitals, and to establish "service areas", within which you should go to an insurer-sanctioned hospital or else they won't cover the visit. Much of this wouldn't be possible when there's only a single insurer in the nation.
`@ -57,4 +57,4 @@ BUT, that's not what's on the ballots. You know what's on the ballots? "Should i`

	[footnote_text] So, why do I keep saying that tax-funded healthcare is okay? Isn't that exactly "giving up more money for the good of humanity"? This is an area where the tangibility, the line-of-sight to the cost, has a big psychological impact. Even though we can look at the government's spending of our taxes and deduce that X% of my Y dollars was spent on roads, and X% was spent on schools, I for one don't really feel those percentages. Taxes are more like a black box where money goes in and results come out. Case in point: if taxes were paid as itemized bills, and every citizen in the US received a separate "Bombs to Drop on Countries that Have Oil we Want" bill in the mail, they'd be shocked and outraged. But taxes aren't itemized like that, and the fact of the matter is we're all paying this Bombs tax already, but few think about it and even fewer complain. For the rest, it's invisible. If healthcare were migrated into taxes, I do assume it would wind up being cheaper, but at the very least it would be invisible like the Bombs tax and people would stop complaining about it so much.	[footnote_text] So, why do I keep saying that tax-funded healthcare is okay? Isn't that exactly "giving up more money for the good of humanity"? This is an area where the tangibility, the line-of-sight to the cost, has a big psychological impact. Even though we can look at the government's spending of our taxes and deduce that X% of my Y dollars was spent on roads, and X% was spent on schools, I for one don't really feel those percentages. Taxes are more like a black box where money goes in and results come out. Case in point: if taxes were paid as itemized bills, and every citizen in the US received a separate "Bombs to Drop on Countries that Have Oil we Want" bill in the mail, they'd be shocked and outraged. But taxes aren't itemized like that, and the fact of the matter is we're all paying this Bombs tax already, but few think about it and even fewer complain. For the rest, it's invisible. If healthcare were migrated into taxes, I do assume it would wind up being cheaper, but at the very least it would be invisible like the Bombs tax and people would stop complaining about it so much.

	[footnote_text] Why do I sound so sure that a government-run insurance would be cheaper than private insurance? The government is not known for its [economic efficiency](https://web.archive.org/web/20200520042744/https://www.nber.org/digest/mar14/w19481.html "National Bureau of Economic Research (2014) -- Federal agencies spend 4.9 more in the last week of the fiscal year in order to use up the rest of their allocated budget, lest they be allocated less for the next year"). Firstly, private insurance companies have costs that a government insurance wouldn't have, such as advertising. Here are a couple of numbers about that ([one](https://web.archive.org/web/20200520043133/https://contently.com/2017/02/06/insurance-advertising-abundance/), [two](https://web.archive.org/web/20200520043015/https://www.iamagazine.com/viewpoints/read/2020/01/15/student-of-the-industry-insurance-ads-who-spends-what-and-why)). Secondly, and probably more impactful, I expect that if the government was the one paying out for coverages, they wouldn't give in to the pricing arms race game that hospitals want to play. Another technique the industry uses to reduce individual power is to create partnerships between insurers and hospitals, and to establish "service areas", within which you should go to an insurer-sanctioned hospital or else they won't cover the visit. Much of this wouldn't be possible when there's only a single insurer in the nation.	[footnote_text] Why do I sound so sure that a government-run insurance would be cheaper than private insurance? The government is not known for its [economic efficiency](nber_use_it_lose_it.html "National Bureau of Economic Research (2014) -- Federal agencies spend 4.9 more in the last week of the fiscal year in order to use up the rest of their allocated budget, lest they be allocated less for the next year"). Firstly, private insurance companies have costs that a government insurance wouldn't have, such as advertising. Here are a couple of numbers about that ([one](contently_insurance_advertising.html), [two](iamagazine_insurance_advertising.html)). Secondly, and probably more impactful, I expect that if the government was the one paying out for coverages, they wouldn't give in to the pricing arms race game that hospitals want to play. Another technique the industry uses to reduce individual power is to create partnerships between insurers and hospitals, and to establish "service areas", within which you should go to an insurer-sanctioned hospital or else they won't cover the visit. Much of this wouldn't be possible when there's only a single insurer in the nation.