Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:52 pm

Price Info not a cure for health care costs?


Price Info Is No Cure for Sticker Shock

Efforts to curb spending raise questions about just how competitive health care can be.

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/insur ... shock.html

"Tough to implement. Supporters of the move say it will improve competition and lower prices. But industry groups representing both hospitals and insurance providers have spoken out against the order, suggesting transparency could actually raise prices."

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by boglerdude » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:40 am

Educate and import more doctors. Doctors get paid too much.

Also, its the American way to let people forgo health insurance, then means-test and hit them with a huge bill if their gamble fails

I dunno how profitable drugs are considering R&D costs....but we do want to attract the best people into biotech
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by Maddy » Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:42 am

Anyone who pays out-of-pocket, as I do, knows that price transparency is everything. Without it, there can be no meaningful negotiation. And yes--I do negotiate.

Why does the liberal media insist that the American public is too dumb to make meaningful use of information? Perhaps because it's their principal mission to dumb down the American public?
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:31 pm

Another side of the equation - those in the insurance companies who deny coverages.

Until I'd read this (old) article today I'd never read anything about these people in any detail. Seems like they do serve a legitimate role for logical reasons.

Vinny

Your Health Plan’s “Dr. No”

https://tnj.com/your-health-plans-dr-no/



But it?s not a computer making the call. A small but powerful group of doctors at big insurance companies are reading files, talking to practicing physicians and ultimately, making decisive judgments on millions of cases a year. Nationwide there are roughly 1,000 of these doctors, usually known as medical directors. Many are drawn to making policy rather than treating patients directly; Liss, for his part, says that if he could start again, he?d become an engineer instead of a physician.

These doctors describe themselves as the key to a working health care system, people who keep costs down so that the maximum number of patients can get care. Critics see them as insurance-company henchmen, branding them with a derisive nickname: Doctor No.



Like other medical directors, Liss often serves as a defense witness when Aetna gets sued, a role he?s wryly proud of. (A plaque on his desk reads “They wanted billions. They got nothing.”) He makes no apologies for embracing the business side of medicine, with all its controversies; he says it enticed him early in his career, when he left regular practice in internal medicine after only three years.

Today, Liss says, he?s in charge of about 2.5 million “lives” for Aetna, which means his team cranks through roughly 1,000 disputed cases a month, a routine that has shaped the way he looks at the costs of health care. “I don?t mean to sound cold here,” he says. “But sometimes when $3 million is being spent to extend someone?s life with a really high-tech treatment, I say, ?Gee, that?s incredible, but can you imagine how many people that could?ve provided dental care to?'”
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by Kbg » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:25 pm

This was my favorite part of the Obamacare scare propaganda by the Rs...death panels. Uh yeah, it’s called these guys in the private insurance world.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by boglerdude » Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:32 am

Pug triggered cuz he thinks he deserves to be paid more despite already being rich.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2 ... es-000557/

There are 7,000 million people in the world and soon enough robots will build homes, cars, and farm. 1 in 4 people will have enough free time to be a medical professional.

> What do you think is fair compensation for 12-20 years of post high school training Plus the insanely long hours, particularly during residency?

Pay is market decision based on relative skill. The long hours during residency are abusive, i dont see how exhausted people treating patients is good.

> and then let others pay for that bill by raising prices on people who can pay

Yeah, we pay taxes or throw poors into the volcano. The non-American solution is raising taxes and forcing everyone into a plan, rather than let them gamble by not buying insurance. Either way the public foots the bill.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:44 am

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:08 am
boglerdude wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:32 am
Pug triggered cuz he thinks he deserves to be paid more despite already being rich.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2 ... es-000557/

There are 7,000 million people in the world and soon enough robots will build homes, cars, and farm. 1 in 4 people will have enough free time to be a medical professional.

> What do you think is fair compensation for 12-20 years of post high school training Plus the insanely long hours, particularly during residency?

Pay is market decision based on relative skill. The long hours during residency are abusive, i dont see how exhausted people treating patients is good.

> and then let others pay for that bill by raising prices on people who can pay

Yeah, we pay taxes or throw poors into the volcano. The non-American solution is raising taxes and forcing everyone into a plan, rather than let them gamble by not buying insurance. Either way the public foots the bill.
LOL, I'm not a physician, so I'm not part of that system. I'm triggered by comments that in my opinion make no logical sense. Athletes and movie stars are overpaid. CEOs are overpaid. If I need open heart surgery, I want the Dr with the best skills. Not the guy who went to Med School in Guam because he couldn't get admitted to a school stateside. Just cuz someone has 'free time' doesn't mean they could do any given job. ::)
Athletes are not overpaid. They are paid what the are worth in a market based economy.

They are the best at what they do in a market based economy.

In baseball there are tons of professional baseball players who are in the minor leagues. If you include their wages with the pay of the major leaguers the median play for professional baseball players might be in about the $30,000 range (if even that high). Is that overpaid?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:46 am

vnatale wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:44 am
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:08 am
boglerdude wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:32 am
Pug triggered cuz he thinks he deserves to be paid more despite already being rich.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2 ... es-000557/

There are 7,000 million people in the world and soon enough robots will build homes, cars, and farm. 1 in 4 people will have enough free time to be a medical professional.

> What do you think is fair compensation for 12-20 years of post high school training Plus the insanely long hours, particularly during residency?

Pay is market decision based on relative skill. The long hours during residency are abusive, i dont see how exhausted people treating patients is good.

> and then let others pay for that bill by raising prices on people who can pay

Yeah, we pay taxes or throw poors into the volcano. The non-American solution is raising taxes and forcing everyone into a plan, rather than let them gamble by not buying insurance. Either way the public foots the bill.
LOL, I'm not a physician, so I'm not part of that system. I'm triggered by comments that in my opinion make no logical sense. Athletes and movie stars are overpaid. CEOs are overpaid. If I need open heart surgery, I want the Dr with the best skills. Not the guy who went to Med School in Guam because he couldn't get admitted to a school stateside. Just cuz someone has 'free time' doesn't mean they could do any given job. ::)
Athletes are not overpaid. They are paid what the are worth in a market based economy.

They are the best at what they do in a market based economy.

In baseball there are tons of professional baseball players who are in the minor leagues. If you include their wages with the pay of the major leaguers the median play for professional baseball players might be in about the $30,000 range (if even that high). Is that overpaid?

And, if my $30,000 pure guess is accurate that would be it at the $15.00 minimum wage that many are advocating for.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:42 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:47 am
vnatale wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:44 am
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:08 am
boglerdude wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:32 am
Pug triggered cuz he thinks he deserves to be paid more despite already being rich.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2 ... es-000557/

There are 7,000 million people in the world and soon enough robots will build homes, cars, and farm. 1 in 4 people will have enough free time to be a medical professional.

> What do you think is fair compensation for 12-20 years of post high school training Plus the insanely long hours, particularly during residency?

Pay is market decision based on relative skill. The long hours during residency are abusive, i dont see how exhausted people treating patients is good.

> and then let others pay for that bill by raising prices on people who can pay

Yeah, we pay taxes or throw poors into the volcano. The non-American solution is raising taxes and forcing everyone into a plan, rather than let them gamble by not buying insurance. Either way the public foots the bill.
LOL, I'm not a physician, so I'm not part of that system. I'm triggered by comments that in my opinion make no logical sense. Athletes and movie stars are overpaid. CEOs are overpaid. If I need open heart surgery, I want the Dr with the best skills. Not the guy who went to Med School in Guam because he couldn't get admitted to a school stateside. Just cuz someone has 'free time' doesn't mean they could do any given job. ::)
Athletes are not overpaid. They are paid what the are worth in a market based economy.

They are the best at what they do in a market based economy.

In baseball there are tons of professional baseball players who are in the minor leagues. If you include their wages with the pay of the major leaguers the median play for professional baseball players might be in about the $30,000 range (if even that high). Is that overpaid?

Vinny
Well then I guess you agree with my premise that physicians are not overpaid as it is market based, based on the system we have. I do agree that athletes and movie stars should be paid a market based salary, it's just my opinion that the market grossly overvalues their worth.

@Boglerdude Again, be careful what you wish for: Surveys showed that the second biggest stress for doctors was finances and the #1 thing they said would reduce their burnout was getting paid more.
https://thephysicianphilosopher.com/wha ... n-burnout/ and
https://etactics.com/blog/physician-burnout-statistics
Maybe when they all retire early due to burnout and you can't get an appointment, you'll be happier. Or maybe you'll enter the field yourself and work for half of the average since the current pay is too high.
The owners get their revenues from the market. The market willingly pays what it pays. And, the owners have franchises that continually go up in value. So in what way does the market "grossly overvalue their worth"?

There are all kinds of people on Wall Street who make way more than the most athletes make. We have no idea who their names are. They have also have careers of much greater longevity than athletes and don't have their earning power subject to being reduced due to physically injured while carrying out their professions.

The American public is constantly voting with their wallets that athletes are worth what they are paid.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by Tortoise » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:35 pm

Athletes’ salaries are heavily subsidized by taxpayers since most sports stadiums are heavily subsidized or even entirely paid for by local governments.

If the sports teams and leagues had to foot the entire bill for those 9-figure stadiums, they’d have less money left over for athletes’ salaries.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/spor ... -the-cost/
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:54 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:35 pm
Athletes’ salaries are heavily subsidized by taxpayers since most sports stadiums are heavily subsidized or even entirely paid for by local governments.

If the sports teams and leagues had to foot the entire bill for those 9-figure stadiums, they’d have less money left over for athletes’ salaries.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/spor ... -the-cost/
No argument on that. But the voters do put the politicians in office who approve these subsidies. Same as they subsidize a huge corporation coming to their city or state.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by Tortoise » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:00 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:54 pm
No argument on that. But the voters do put the politicians in office who approve these subsidies. Same as they subsidize a huge corporation coming to their city or state.
My point was simply that pro athletes' salaries aren't strictly market-based. (I was addressing your comment that "Athletes are not overpaid. They are paid what the [sic] are worth in a market based economy.")

In other words, it's not simply supply and demand that determines pro athletes' salaries. Because taxpayer dollars heavily subsidize pro sports stadiums as I explained, I think a case can be made that pro athletes -- or at least the highest-paid ones -- are probably "overpaid" in the sense of being paid more than they likely would without the taxpayer subsidy.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:35 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:00 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:54 pm
No argument on that. But the voters do put the politicians in office who approve these subsidies. Same as they subsidize a huge corporation coming to their city or state.
My point was simply that pro athletes' salaries aren't strictly market-based. (I was addressing your comment that "Athletes are not overpaid. They are paid what the [sic] are worth in a market based economy.")

In other words, it's not simply supply and demand that determines pro athletes' salaries. Because taxpayer dollars heavily subsidize pro sports stadiums as I explained, I think a case can be made that pro athletes -- or at least the highest-paid ones -- are probably "overpaid" in the sense of being paid more than they likely would without the taxpayer subsidy.
Do we have any pure markets unaffected by government actions in a positive way?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by boglerdude » Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:11 am

Gov needs to fund basic science because its a money loser.

AMA is a cartel restricting supply of doctors
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/c ... rs_why_do/
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:05 pm

Steve Forbes is quite excited over all that is in this book:

The Cure That Works: How to Have the World's Best Healthcare -- at a Quarter of the Price Hardcover – June 18, 2019
by Sean Masaki Flynn Ph.D. (Author)

https://smile.amazon.com/The-Cure-That- ... l_huc_item


His accompanying article:


Superb Healthcare At Ultra-Low Prices? How Singapore Does It

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbe ... eee0bd3add



"Can you imagine the United States having a health care system that delivers better outcomes than those we get today at a cost that is 75% less? That number is not a misprint or a fantasy; it’s the reality in Singapore, where there is universal coverage. Life expectancy is 85, more than five years better than in the U.S. Decades ago, Singapore seriously lagged the U.S; now, infant mortality is lower and other medical metrics in the city-state are also better than they are here.

Doctors and health-care practitioners are every bit as good in Singapore as they are here, or just about anywhere else in the world. Many get trained in the U.S. or at top-flight schools elsewhere. The nation is always scouring the world for best practices and cutting-edge technologies. That’s right—Singapore’s hospitals and clinics don’t hesitate to buy the latest and the best equipment and devices.

The Cure That Works
©2015 STEPHEN WEBSTER
Just look at the prices of medical procedures in Singapore. In the U.S. heart-bypass surgery will set you (and your insurer) back some $130,000. In Singapore? $18,000. A hip replacement costs 72% less and a heart valve 92% less.

Drug prices there are a fraction of ours. Insurance premiums are inexpensive—about $50 for those under 20 years of age and a little more than $1,000 a year for those in their late 80s. Moreover, if you pursue bad habits, such as overeating or smoking, your premiums go up. Unlike in the U.S., individuals pay for the policy, so it’s portable, not tied to their jobs. Therefore, Singa­pore has a robust individual-insurance market.

Does Singapore accomplish this by underpaying physicians? Nope. The after-tax incomes (Singapore’s income-tax rates are a fraction of ours) of general practitioners and specialists are about equal. And docs in Singapore aren’t plagued by malpractice costs or countless hours spent filling out insurance forms.

As this year’s election campaign heats up, the issue of health-care costs will come to the fore again. Unfortunately, the issue will be cast as the system we have today versus some version of a European-style single-payer system. Neither model resembles what Singapore does. So what does that country do?

Sean Masaki Flynn’s extraordinarily important—and, so far, largely ignored—book The Cure That Works (Regnery, $28.99) gives the answers in straightforward prose. You’ll be rubbing your eyes in disbelief: Health care can indeed be inexpensive, first-rate and easily accessible to everyone.

The bottom line: Capitalism with safety nets works! Singapore has the most free-market-oriented medical system anywhere.

The U.S., in contrast, has a third-party system—providers, patients and insurers/government. And it’s the third parties that are the drivers here. Hospitals, for instance, know their revenues depend more on how well they negotiate with insurers than on how well they satisfy patients. This leads to the utterly strange situation of prices almost never being posted!"
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Price Info not a cure for health care costs?

Post by D1984 » Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:06 am

vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:05 pm
Steve Forbes is quite excited over all that is in this book:

The Cure That Works: How to Have the World's Best Healthcare -- at a Quarter of the Price Hardcover – June 18, 2019
by Sean Masaki Flynn Ph.D. (Author)

https://smile.amazon.com/The-Cure-That- ... l_huc_item


His accompanying article:


Superb Healthcare At Ultra-Low Prices? How Singapore Does It

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbe ... eee0bd3add



"Can you imagine the United States having a health care system that delivers better outcomes than those we get today at a cost that is 75% less? That number is not a misprint or a fantasy; it’s the reality in Singapore, where there is universal coverage. Life expectancy is 85, more than five years better than in the U.S. Decades ago, Singapore seriously lagged the U.S; now, infant mortality is lower and other medical metrics in the city-state are also better than they are here.

Doctors and health-care practitioners are every bit as good in Singapore as they are here, or just about anywhere else in the world. Many get trained in the U.S. or at top-flight schools elsewhere. The nation is always scouring the world for best practices and cutting-edge technologies. That’s right—Singapore’s hospitals and clinics don’t hesitate to buy the latest and the best equipment and devices.

The Cure That Works
©2015 STEPHEN WEBSTER
Just look at the prices of medical procedures in Singapore. In the U.S. heart-bypass surgery will set you (and your insurer) back some $130,000. In Singapore? $18,000. A hip replacement costs 72% less and a heart valve 92% less.

Drug prices there are a fraction of ours. Insurance premiums are inexpensive—about $50 for those under 20 years of age and a little more than $1,000 a year for those in their late 80s. Moreover, if you pursue bad habits, such as overeating or smoking, your premiums go up. Unlike in the U.S., individuals pay for the policy, so it’s portable, not tied to their jobs. Therefore, Singa­pore has a robust individual-insurance market.

Does Singapore accomplish this by underpaying physicians? Nope. The after-tax incomes (Singapore’s income-tax rates are a fraction of ours) of general practitioners and specialists are about equal. And docs in Singapore aren’t plagued by malpractice costs or countless hours spent filling out insurance forms.

As this year’s election campaign heats up, the issue of health-care costs will come to the fore again. Unfortunately, the issue will be cast as the system we have today versus some version of a European-style single-payer system. Neither model resembles what Singapore does. So what does that country do?

Sean Masaki Flynn’s extraordinarily important—and, so far, largely ignored—book The Cure That Works (Regnery, $28.99) gives the answers in straightforward prose. You’ll be rubbing your eyes in disbelief: Health care can indeed be inexpensive, first-rate and easily accessible to everyone.

The bottom line: Capitalism with safety nets works! Singapore has the most free-market-oriented medical system anywhere.

The U.S., in contrast, has a third-party system—providers, patients and insurers/government. And it’s the third parties that are the drivers here. Hospitals, for instance, know their revenues depend more on how well they negotiate with insurers than on how well they satisfy patients. This leads to the utterly strange situation of prices almost never being posted!"
The two main reason's Singapore's healthcare costs are lower than ours are:

One, the government owns/operates/runs seven or eight general hospitals (and IIRC a specialty cardiac hospital, a specialty ob/gyn hospital, and a specialty cancer hospital on top of that) throughout Singapore; these hospitals offer medical care at prices that are rock-bottom compared to the US (for instance, a heart bypass at between $18K and maybe $22K depending on the hospital vs around $85K to $130K here in the US). This means that the other nine (private i.e. not government-owned) hospitals (Gleneagles, Mt. Elizabeth, Raffles, etc) can charge "only" around maybe $25K to $45K for the same heart bypass or else they would have almost no customers. The same pretty much applies for every major inpatient medical service across the board. If we had Singapore's medical care prices our costs would plummet even if we kept our current wasteful health insurance system and otherwise did nothing else to change anything.

Two, massive differences in demographics, population, public health factors, behavioral factors, etc. They have a population that is somewhat younger
than ours (although this is changing rapidly.....by 2098 or 2099 their population is expected to be even older than Japan's at the time unless they massively increase immigration; Singapore has one of the lowest TFRs in the developed world), majority ethnically Chinese (if you look at the US's population of Asians in general and Chinese in particular they tend to have longer lifespans and better health outcomes than Americans overall), more in-shape than ours (people walk and use public transit more since cars are incredibly expensive due to COE, import fees, GST, ARF, VES/emissions fee, etc...suffice to say a car that costs, say $28K in the US could cost $140K or more in Singapore....oh, and speaking of being in better shape.....every Singaporean male has to do two years of National Service and even after that has to--at least on paper--stay in military shape at least to age 40 when his reservist obligation ends), have much less violent death per thousand people than we do (much lower crime overall due to it basically being a nanny state/police state, almost no gun crime due to draconian gun laws, less car accidents since many Singaporeans can't afford cars thanks to the taxes and fees, etc), have less cancer/drug overdoes/alcoholism than we do (thanks to crazy harsh drug laws and sky-high taxes on alcohol and tobacco...and also due to they don't have pharma companies pushing opiod overprescription like some parts of the US do), etc. If the US had all of the above (which is never going to happen and nor would I want it to happen....I don't think many Americans would, actually) I'd bet our public health indicators would soar even if we changed nothing else about our health care and health insurance system.

I would also like to note that IIRC Singapore's compulsory government-run basic health insurance system (Medishield Life) does not directly charge smokers or the overweight more per se; they DO make you pay maybe a third more than a standard premium for the first ten years you are insured if you happen to have certain pre-existing conditions; if smoking or being obese has given you one of those conditions then they charge you more but if it hasn't you get charged the same as anyone else in your age bracket. This does NOT apply to private Integrated Shield policies (which some two-thirds of Singapore's population has) nor to private "critical illness policies" or "accident policies" (which are more popular over there than they are here); both of those types of policies would almost certainly charge you more based on smoking or being above a certain BMI......but for the basic government-run health insurance everyone has to buy there is not a surcharge merely for having an unhealthy habit.
Post Reply