"A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage"

[grundle]

The U.S. spends more tax dollars per person on health care than other countries that many supporters of universal health care cite as role models, such as France, Germany, and Japan.

If the U.S. adopted a system like those countries, it would mean that the government would spend less tax dollars per person on health care, not more. So the government would get smaller, not bigger. So there would be no need to raise taxes.

Also, we should avoid the kinds of systems that exist in Canada and the U.K. Instead, France, Germany, and Japan would be better systems to copy.

However, some of the people who cite those other countries as role models for universal health care, have wrongly claimed that the U.S. would need to raise taxes to pay for universal health care. This does not make any sense, because those countries spend less tax dollars per person on health care than the U.S.

I agree with what this writer is saying. I favor universal health care, but only if it means we reduce the amount of money that the government spends per person on health care, and we don't raise taxes to pay for it.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html

December 12, 2007

A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage

By Randall Hoven

I am a small-government conservative/libertarian and have hated the concept of socialized medicine almost all my life. But now, I could live with universal health coverage in the U.S.. Here's why.

We now have the worst of both worlds: we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it. In fact, we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage. Then we pay more than that amount again in private coverage. Additionally, what we have now in the U.S. is nowhere near a free market in health care. Defending the status quo is not defending a free market. And if socialized medicine is your fear, we already have it.

I've heard no one, on either side of the political spectrum, play up the fact that the government in the U.S. already spends more on health care than almost every other country on earth. I'm talking government spending, not private spending. According to the U.S. Statistical Abstract, government spending on health care in the U.S was $2,168 per person in 2001 (the last year for which comparison data are available). Here were the top 10 government spenders on health care in 2001.

* Norway: $2,550
* U.S.: $2,168
* Denmark: $2,098
* Iceland: $2,025
* Sweden: $1,832
* Germany: $1,803
* France: $1,599
* Canada: $1,531
* UK: $1,518
* Belgium: $1,417.

If we add in private spending as well, it's not even close.

* U.S.: $4,887
* Switzerland: $3,690
* Norway: $2,982
* Denmark: $2,545
* Iceland: $2,441
* Germany: $2,407
* Canada: $2,161
* Sweden: $2,149
* Netherlands: $2,134
* France: $2,104.

Note that the countries frequently cited as models of universal health care, Canada and the U.K., spent less on public health than the U.S. did. Sweden, the notorious welfare state, spent 15% less than the U.S.. The only country to spend more, Norway, has about the size and population of Colorado, with oil exports over 3 million barrels per day.

Even as a fraction of GDP, government in the U.S. spent a comparable amount to other nations (6.6% in 2002). Canada spent just slightly more (6.7%), and Japan and the U.K. spent less (6.4%). Only seven countries of the 28 countries listed spent a greater fraction of GDP on public health funding than the U.S..

What about the private side, the "free market" side? There, government regulates the health industry and mandates what health insurance must cover.

While the U.S. does not have universal health coverage, it has had universal health care since 1986. Any person who goes to an emergency room in virtually any hospital in the country must be examined and then either treated or transferred to another hospital for treatment if the condition requires immediate care.


According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), "By the late 1960s, state legislatures had passed only a handful of mandated benefits; today, CAHI has identified more than 1,900 mandated benefits and providers. And more are on their way." According to CAHI, such mandates include:

* Providers such as chiropractors and podiatrists, but also social workers and massage therapists;
* Benefits such as mammograms, well-child care and even drug and alcohol abuse treatment, but also acupuncture and hair prostheses (wigs); and,
* Populations such as adopted and non-custodial children.

Then there are federal mandates such as minimum hospital stays for baby deliveries, equal coverage caps for both mental and physical health benefits and reconstructive surgery after mastectomies.

According to the CATO Institute, the net cost of health regulation in the U.S. is over $169 billion, or an average of $1,500 per household.

So let's review. The government provides Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, veterans' hospitals for veterans, medical research funding and whatever else adds up to 6.6% of GDP. The federal government forces hospitals to provide emergency treatment to all comers. State governments mandate over 1,900 types of coverage on health insurance. Health care regulations cost the average household over $1,500.

We already have socialized medicine and we are already paying for it -- twice: once in taxes and once privately. What we are not getting is universal coverage.

But if universal care (via emergency rooms) is already mandated, what's the problem? First, it is not the best way to get treatment. For one thing, the condition has to be regarded as a medical emergency. Also, the law does not relieve you of having to pay for that treatment. In fact, medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies in the U.S., accounting for half of them.

So while you might not die, the U.S. health care system does give you the age-old offer of "your money or your life".

As small-government conservatives or libertarians, we could say, "That is the individual's choice: get the insurance or suffer the consequences." But if that is our policy, then why is our government paying over $2,100 per person per year and regulating health care at a cost of $1,500 per household? What are we getting for that money?

If we are to be consistent libertarians, then the government should stop meddling in health care and health insurance altogether. End Medicare. End Medicaid. Close down veterans' hospitals. Stop funding medical research. Stop funding pharmaceutical research. Stop mandating vaccines. Stop mandating emergency room treatment. Stop mandating health insurance policies. Stop doing those things that cost us 6.6% of our GDP when we have to kick in another 7% or more of our own.

If our government stopped all those things, then I would a happy libertarian. But the government will not stop them. If politics is the art of the possible, it is not possible to end all the programs and policies cited above. So ... if we are going to be forced to pay for something, then we ought to get it. Either provide us the coverage, or give us our money back.

Full disclosure: My daughter needed a heart transplant at age 15. We had full coverage from my employer, so cost was never a personal issue to us. I'm not sure what these things cost (neither did her cardiologist), but I believe the surgery and resulting hospital stay would be a few hundred thousand dollars. Testing and diagnostics beforehand could exceed $100,000. Anti-rejection drugs and follow-up testing could run to six figures yet again. I believe a total cost of $500,000 is not out of the question, with annual post-surgery costs in the five figures.

This was not a matter of elective treatment. There was nothing that could have prevented it. In my daughter's case it was a rare condition, with cause unknown, unforeseen and unforeseeable. The choice was do or die. And there was no decision on our part that could have reduced the cost in any significant way. There are no low-cost heart transplants. There or no alternative treatments. A bake-sale here or poker-run there would not come near the required amount.

If you are struck with such a catastrophic health crisis, you simply must have a very good health insurance policy or a net worth into the millions to avoid both death and bankruptcy.

And health insurance is not a trivial cost. Family coverage goes for about $13,000 per year or more. The median family income in 2001 was $51,407. The choice for some families is to pay over a fourth of their after-tax income on health insurance, or risk relying on emergency room care only and then going bankrupt should a catastrophic health issue come up. Many chose no or inadequate coverage, and many went bankrupt.

The cost problem is not one just for poorer families. At $13,000 and up per year per family, and growing faster than inflation, health insurance affects everyone. We now spend 15% of our GDP on health. Any Chief Executive Officer would love to have health insurance taken off his worry list. Any state governor would love to have Medicare removed from his federal mandates. It is impacting our productivity and competitiveness.

Let me make something else clear: universal health care coverage is not the same as single-payer health care. Canada and the U.K. have nothing to brag about regarding either the quality of health care or the cost of it. But those are not the only models of universal coverage. Germany, Japan and others have universal, or near-universal, health coverage without a single-payer system.

It would be naïve of me to propose a specific plan. But a true conservative ought to be able to work within the following guidelines.

* Public health spending in the U.S. not to exceed current costs as a fraction of GDP (currently 6.6% of GDP).
* Coverage of all U.S. citizens. The definition of "coverage" could be debated, but should include catastrophic type coverage as a minimum.
* Consolidation and integration of all aspects of public health programs should be on the table, including Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, research and all federal health programs and policies. That is, Medicare reform should be part of the deal.
* Preservation of private choices in health care.
* Medical tort reform.
* Reduced mandates on individuals, insurers, health providers and states regarding health care policies and practices.

I don't see why a small-government conservative or libertarian would think the above is worse than what we have now. I also don't see why the above should be impossible, even politically.

Someday, some sort of universal coverage is going to happen in the U.S. What plan would you prefer -- one consistent with the above, or one dictated by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards? When Iraq becomes yesterday's news, Republicans need to be ready with this issue.

[VinVega]

Whoever hijacked grundle's account and is posting under his name. Be warned, the mods are watching you.

:lol:

[wishbone]

Whoever hijacked grundle's account and is posting under his name. Be warned, the mods are watching you.

:lol:It is a new year. :shrug:

[Thor Simpson]

What is the <b>total cost</B> per treated individual in those countries vs. the U.S.?

[grundle]

Whoever hijacked grundle's account and is posting under his name. Be warned, the mods are watching you.

:lol:


You made your post before I put up my poll.

If you look at my poll, it proves that this is me, and no one hijacked my account.

[grundle]

What is the <b>total cost</B> per treated individual in those countries vs. the U.S.?



Although I didn't bold it, there is a thing in there that shows the private spending per person also. So you can add it to the government spending to get the overall total.

[Thor Simpson]

...we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage. Then we pay more than that amount again in private coverage.So the total cost of healthcare is more than twice as much as these other countries per person. Agreed?

[Venusian]

Universal Healthcare in the US won't mean less spending, it'll mean more. It shouldn't mean more but I have faith that our govt will find effective ways to waste money and make it cost more

[grundle]

So the total cost of healthcare is more than twice as much as these other countries per person. Agreed?


In some cases, yes. In other cases, no.

The article shows the government spending per country, and the private spending per country. In some cases the total U.S. spending is more than twice that of other countries, and in other cases it's less.

[Thor Simpson]

Universal Healthcare in the US won't mean less spending, it'll mean more. It shouldn't mean more but I have faith that our govt will find effective ways to waste money and make it cost more
You got that right. If this ever happened in this country, you show me how anyone could possibly ever propose a cut on spending on health care. Talk about political suicide. They will have the standard inflation amount each period that they decide upon, and they will ask for more money to provide sufficient coverage for more things, and it will be a thumping point about how great it would be to provide coverage for such and such because really, you can't put a price on people's lives. Just a little more per person in this country. You think it's hard to propose a cut in spending on education? Wait until people's health and lives are on the line. And if there's ever a problem with the system, what will that mean... reform? No, more money.

[grundle]

Universal Healthcare in the US won't mean less spending, it'll mean more. It shouldn't mean more but I have faith that our govt will find effective ways to waste money and make it cost more


I agree with you.

That's why I said I favor it only if we don't increase spending.

My poll is brilliant!

[Red Dog]

Universal Healthcare in the US won't mean less spending, it'll mean more. It shouldn't mean more but I have faith that our govt will find effective ways to waste money and make it cost more


There is little doubt of this, and I'm surprised that a self-professed small-government type as the writer is would fail to account for this.

[grundle]

You got that right. If this ever happened in this country, you show me how anyone could possibly ever propose a cut on spending on health care. Talk about political suicide. They will have the standard inflation amount each preiod that they decide upon, and they will ask for more money to provide sufficient coverage for more things, and it will be a thumping point about how great it would be to provide coverage for such and such because really, you can't put a price on people's lives. Just a little more per person in this country. You think it's hard to propose a cut in spending on education? Wait until people's health and lives are on the line.

That's why I did that poll.

[wendersfan]

The reasons stated in the article are the only compelling reasons why I would support universal health care.


Not that I do. ;)

[classicman2]

Forget whether the government is involved - if everyone had private health insurance the cost of healthcare would rise in this country.

Any third-payment raises the cost of healthcare.

[Vibiana]

Forget whether the government is involved - if everyone had private health insurance the cost of healthcare would rise in this country.

Any third-payment raises the cost of healthcare.

:thumbsup:

Also, if you want to see healthcare costs decreased, someone somewhere (actually, to be more specific, all of us everywhere) is going to have to stop insisting on the maximum treatment for everything. Another reason health care is expensive is that so many people -- or their relatives -- want no expense spared to keep them alive. Most of the health care costs a person incurs are in the last year of his/her life.

[grundle]

The poll results so far:


View Poll Results: What do you think?

I favor universal care, but only if we don't increase per capita govt spending on health care. 1 14.29%

I favor universal health care, and I favor raising taxes to pay for it. 3 42.86%

I oppose universal health care. 3 42.86%


So except for myself, everyone who favors universal health care wants to raise taxes to pay for it.

Would those of you who voted that way please explain why you favor raising taxes to pay for universal health care?

[Birrman54]

I've heard that, on average, you'll spend half the money you spend on healthcare in your lifetime in the last 6 months of your life. (at least in the US)

I wonder if it's different in nations with universal care.

[al_bundy]

:thumbsup:

Also, if you want to see healthcare costs decreased, someone somewhere (actually, to be more specific, all of us everywhere) is going to have to stop insisting on the maximum treatment for everything. Another reason health care is expensive is that so many people -- or their relatives -- want no expense spared to keep them alive. Most of the health care costs a person incurs are in the last year of his/her life.

easy to say this until it's your loved one dying

[nemein]

:thumbsup:

Also, if you want to see healthcare costs decreased, someone somewhere (actually, to be more specific, all of us everywhere) is going to have to stop insisting on the maximum treatment for everything. Another reason health care is expensive is that so many people -- or their relatives -- want no expense spared to keep them alive. Most of the health care costs a person incurs are in the last year of his/her life.


I think that's indicative of a larger issue in our country. We don't handle death very well. We don't like to talk about it, we don't like the think about it and I believe many people are afraid of it (despite supposedly being a Christian nation).

[Vibiana]

easy to say this until it's your loved one dying

I don't agree. My mother was one who wanted all the stops pulled out to keep her alive. She only agreed to hospice care for the last few months of her life because she could tell that she was starting to founder mentally and realized somewhere deep inside that she wasn't going to make it. Insurance benefits kept my mother alive for at least 25 years longer than she would have lived otherwise. Over that time she had four open-heart surgeries; her bills mounted into the hundreds of thousands. While I'm grateful for every day I had her, I also realize that for the last decade or so, she was very limited in what she could do, and that if it were not for the insurance, my parents could never have paid for her care. If insurance is required to pay for that kind of expense for everyone, eventually the system is going to collapse. As someone else said, we have a problem accepting death. My mother did, I know.

[Groucho]

So except for myself, everyone who favors universal health care wants to raise taxes to pay for it.

Would those of you who voted that way please explain why you favor raising taxes to pay for universal health care?I'm assuming that the people who voted for that option want universal health care and are willing to pay for it. They'd prefer if there was no tax increase, but they're willing to live with one. They don't want to raise taxes just to raise taxes. Does that make sense?

[grundle]

I'm assuming that the people who voted for that option want universal health care and are willing to pay for it. They'd prefer if there was no tax increase, but they're willing to live with one. They don't want to raise taxes just to raise taxes. Does that make sense?


I understand what you are saying.

But if that's how they feel, then they're not being honest when they cite France, Japan, or Germany as their role model for how the U.S. should run universal health care. They want a kind of universal health care that doesn't exist in any country.

[grundle]

Now the results are:


View Poll Results: What do you think?

I favor universal care, but only if we don't increase per capita govt spending on health care. 4 30.77%

I favor universal health care, and I favor raising taxes to pay for it. 4 30.77%

I oppose universal health care. 5 38.46%



So now there are people who agree with me.

[Thor Simpson]

I understand what you are saying.

But if that's how they feel, then they're not being honest when they cite France, Japan, or Germany as their role model for how the U.S. should run universal health care. They want a kind of universal health care that doesn't exist in any country.
Perhaps they see France, Japan and Germany as role models but realize such programs would be more expensive in this country and are willing to pay that cost if necessary.

[Thor Simpson]

So now there are people who agree with me.
There you go jumping to conclusions again. They were obviously pity votes. -ptth-

[bhk]

Forget whether the government is involved - if everyone had private health insurance the cost of healthcare would rise in this country.

Any third-payment raises the cost of healthcare.

Healthcare costs have risen significantly in every area except elective cosmetic surgery because that is paid for in cash and people shop around while surgeons compete for that cash business. In other words, I agree. But we need to take more things in healthcare towards that cash system(or credits to taxes for money spent on healthcare) than to have more people covered by third party payors

[grundle]

Perhaps they see France, Japan and Germany as role models but realize such programs would be more expensive in this country and are willing to pay that cost if necessary.


Then they aren't really viewing France, Japan, and Germany as role models. They are being dishonest when they say they want to copy those systems, but simultaneoulsy claim that it would require a tax increase.

[shifrbv]

:thumbsup:

Also, if you want to see healthcare costs decreased, someone somewhere (actually, to be more specific, all of us everywhere) is going to have to stop insisting on the maximum treatment for everything. Another reason health care is expensive is that so many people -- or their relatives -- want no expense spared to keep them alive. Most of the health care costs a person incurs are in the last year of his/her life.

Locally there was an article about Medicaid spending. It was stated that the elderly and disabled who make up 22% of the Medicaid recipients use over 2/3rds of the total funding.

Not sure what can be done about that. When it's your relative, people want everything. My spouse's 95 year old grandfather just passed away earlier this year. Before he died, they were discussing all types of surgeries and treatment options. My opinion was the guy was 95 and lived an exceptionally long time. But the family wanted everything they could get. He died before his surgery date.

[ernestrp]

:thumbsup:

Also, if you want to see healthcare costs decreased, someone somewhere (actually, to be more specific, all of us everywhere) is going to have to stop insisting on the maximum treatment for everything. Another reason health care is expensive is that so many people -- or their relatives -- want no expense spared to keep them alive. Most of the health care costs a person incurs are in the last year of his/her life.

Good Point. I guess they (doctors, etc.) see it has a last chance to get what they can.

I have been taking my father to the doctor lately and I dont know if its all doctor offices now but its all advertising!!!! There is a TV hanging from the ceiling and its showing advertisements for drugs. There must be atleast 3 racks on walls that have pamplets advertising drugs. The tables, window sills, doors and the glass check-in booth have advertising. I dont think universal coverage would work in any form as most people would want everything. I try to avoid the doctor and havent seen one in 24 years.

Now, if it was free and I was a non-working non-tax paying person, I would say universal coverage was beautiful.

[bhk]

Good Point. I guess they (doctors, etc.) see it has a last chance to get what they can.

Believe me, it isn't that at all. They don't want some 95 y.o. guy's crazy relatives suing because the doctor recommended that because he's 95 he probably shouldn't have that cardiac bypass operation. The one sure way to lose a lawsuit is to use age to be the sole deciding factor in a decision.

Not sure what can be done about that. When it's your relative, people want everything. My spouse's 95 year old grandfather just passed away earlier this year. Before he died, they were discussing all types of surgeries and treatment options. My opinion was the guy was 95 and lived an exceptionally long time. But the family wanted everything they could get.

Bingo. As a physician, no matter how futile the case, if the family wants everything, our hands are tied. We are required by law and ethics to do everything. No family member ever thinks that saving healthcare dollars is a priority in the care of their (even terminal) relative.

[bhk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/10/doctor.attacks

A third of doctors attacked at work
Sara Gaines Society Guardian, Thursday January 10 2008

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Thursday January 10 2008. It was last updated at 23:50 on January 09 2008.

One in three doctors has been physically or verbally attacked at work in the last year, but most did not report it, a survey reveals today.

One in 10 was physically attacked, including being stabbed, kicked, punched, bitten or spat on. Of these, a third suffered minor injuries but one in 20 was seriously hurt.

Most doctors who were attacked did not report it to police. The British Medical Association (BMA) said it was concerned that indicated an increasing acceptance of violence.

"These are worrying figures - both in terms of the potential numbers involved and the fact that so few doctors tend to report violence," said Dr Hamish Meldrum, the BMA chairman.

"We hope this is not because they feel the problem is not being taken seriously.

"Ministers have repeatedly stated there should be zero tolerance to violence of any sort in the NHS. We heartily agree. The mechanisms must be there to minimise the likelihood of attacks, to support staff who experience them, and to ensure that anyone who commits an act of violence is dealt with appropriately."

Attacks most commonly happened when patients were frustrated with waiting times or angry at a refusal to prescribe medication.

Just under 600 doctors in England, Scotland and Wales responded to the BMA survey and more than half said they had witnessed violence against other staff, such as nurses and receptionists.

Female doctors were more likely to experience violence in the workplace (37% compared to 27% of males).

Junior doctors were the most likely to experience violence, followed by GPs. And almost two thirds of psychiatrists reported that violence in their workplace is a problem, compared with a fifth of surgeons.

Most doctors have not received any training in dealing with violent patients and only one in 10 had access to a secure facility in which to treat violent patients.

The government has vowed to tackle violence against hospital staff, through the criminal justice and immigration bill, which is now before parliament. The bill contains proposals to tackle nuisance behaviour on NHS hospital premises and the BMA is seeking an amendment so GP surgeries are also covered

Now, docs in this country face violence too but that mainly occurs from crazy people and criminals, not legitimate patients who are frustrated with waiting times. Just for 6 months I'd like to see socialized medicine enacted in this country just to see the faces of the people when they are told that they won't be able to see a heart specialist for 6 to 8 months.

[bhk]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080109.wldoctors09/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

Frustration brewing among family doctors
SHERYL UBELACKER

The Canadian Press

January 9, 2008 at 5:16 AM EST

Faced with an aging population requiring increasingly complex care, overwhelmed Canadian doctors are feeling more and more frustrated by their inability to properly serve their patients' health needs, a national survey of physicians reports.

In the survey of more than 20,000 doctors and doctors-in-training from across the country, 75 per cent reported that inadequate funding of the health-care system and an undersupply of physicians and other health professionals, along with paperwork and bureaucracy, are curtailing the amount and level of care they want to provide patients.

While that attitude was expressed by all the specialties, it is perhaps most pronounced among family physicians, simply because of their number and the nature of their practice, said Calvin Gutkin, executive director and CEO of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Almost half of Canada's roughly 60,000 doctors are family practitioners, and it's usually the specialty seen most often by patients, he said.

"I think the frustration remains related to just the capacity within the family medicine community to address all of the needs of the population," said Dr. Gutkin, whose organization conducts the triennial survey jointly with the Canadian Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

"Physicians in most communities across the country are doing their best to try to see as many patients as they can," he said. "But still many of them have had to ... limit the number of new patients they can take. And we have community after community with patients who are unable to access a family physician for themselves or for their families.

"And the family physicians themselves are aware of this and are very frustrated by this."

In fact, an estimated four million to five million Canadians do not have a family doctor, and physician groups lay the blame in part on a woefully understaffed health-care system.

CMA president Brian Day said the survey shows that about 4,000 doctors plan to retire in the next two years and medical school graduates will barely cover that loss. As well, 35 per cent of physicians surveyed said they plan to slow down and cut back on their practice.

To bring Canada's health system up to global standards, the country would immediately need to add 26,000 doctors, Dr. Day said from Vancouver. "That's not going to happen."

Besides further increasing medical school openings, Dr. Day said, government should make certification easier for the 1,500 doctors trained outside the country each year.

Louise Samson, president of the RCPSC, said more specialists are also needed to meet the growing needs of the patient population, which is getting older, living longer and beset by more complex health issues as a result.

As a radiologist in Montreal, Dr. Samson sees first-hand the long wait patients have for MRIs and CT scans because there are not enough technicians to perform the tests or radiologists to interpret the results.

"Despite government investments to achieve reduced wait times in priority areas such as cancer treatment, heart procedures, diagnostic imaging, joint replacements and sight restoration, the survey reveals that progress has been quite uneven," she said.

The survey also showed that only about a quarter of doctors are using electronic records to enter and retrieve patient information.

Although progress is being made in electronic record-keeping, secure and reliable systems are not widely in place, Dr. Gutkin said, leaving most doctors to deal with far less efficient means of storing and sharing patient information.

The doctors' groups are calling on the federal, provincial and territorial governments to:

Continue to address the education, training, recruitment and retention of physicians to ensure a sustainable work force that is ready to meet the changing health needs of Canadians;

Implement a co-ordinated, Canada-wide approach to educating, training, recruiting and retaining enough physicians to meet the needs of an aging population.

Remember this when someone tells you that a single payer system will eliminate beaurocracy and lessen paperwork. The Canadians are finding out that for some reason, when they shove umbrellas up the doctors rear ends and then try to open them up, there will be less people opting for the umbrella enema treatment.

[Sdallnct]

Healthcare costs have risen significantly in every area except elective cosmetic surgery because that is paid for in cash and people shop around while surgeons compete for that cash business. In other words, I agree. But we need to take more things in healthcare towards that cash system(or credits to taxes for money spent on healthcare) than to have more people covered by third party payors

I personally don't have a problem with that, family and I are pretty healthy.

But this "third party system" helps spread the risk. Meaning everyone pays more or less the same. Meaning my premiums subsidize those high risk people who could never get coverage or afford to pay for care on their own.

I go to the Dr. on average once a year. I can afford that on my own. But what about the person that has to go 20-30 times a year that makes the same or less money then me? How do they afford it?

Insurance is all about spreading the risk so that it is affordable for all. You remove that and simply say "everyone pay for your own and do the best you can" and those that rarely go to the Dr. will be fine. Those that have to go a lot will be in trouble. So what do you do? Raise taxes so the government is helping pay for those folks. So what is the difference between paying a premium or paying a tax? Either way you are helping pay for others.

Besides, there is nothing to prevent you from shopping around now even if you have insurance. I always ask my Dr. if there is a generic medication, or if there are alternative.

Easy example: Say you live in a $250,000 house. Why insure it? If it burns to the ground just pay to have it rebuilt on your own. But lets say you pay $2000 in premiums for insurance. It would take 125 years for the insurance company to collect enough money from you to pay for your burned downhouse. And that is assuming you had no other losses in 125 years (just and example I know they could earn interest/income on your money). So if your house buns down where do they get the money? From everyone else who they have insured.

[bhk]

But what about the person that has to go 20-30 times a year that makes the same or less money then me? How do they afford it?

They can "afford" it because they don't have to really pay for it, other people(us) pay for it with taxes. Would you ride the ambulance to the ER for an ankle sprain? Or go there for a ordinary headache? People on Medicaid do that sort of thing all the time.

[Sdallnct]

They can "afford" it because they don't have to really pay for it, other people(us) pay for it with taxes. Would you ride the ambulance to the ER for an ankle sprain? Or go there for a ordinary headache? People on Medicaid do that sort of thing all the time.

Well a private insurance company would never pay for those things. So now is the arguement for private and against goverment?

For example on that simple headache you couldn't get a MRI and expent private insurance to pay.

[jessecrx]

The classic universal healthcare/socialized medicine question. I am totally against any form of socialized healthcare.

I can hear the flames coming now...
But what about the kids! Care to debate the fact that there are so many kids in this country without healthcare!? You selfish, heartless bastard!

Care to debate the fact that I'm not responsible for someone elses kids? If you want to have kids and can't afford health insurance for them then what in the heck makes you think you have the right to take money out of MY pay check to support your bad life decisions? When you do that you are hurting MY ability to provide a better life for myself and MY future kids.

In my opinion, a truly free market/private/competitive health care system is the answer to our health care problems. I honestly can't believe how anyone supports any type of government run health care, regardless of what you want to call it, once you understand how free markets work.

In a truly free market system we'd all be paying CASH for all basic doctor checkups. Your average American would only need health insurance plans to cover major medical events.

"Pay cash you say...but zOMG nobody will be able to afford that" I don't think so. . In a truly free market system health care will have to be COMPETITIVE to make money. This means providing the BEST services possible at the LOWEST prices to earn your service.

Our government involvement in medicine is the exact reason medical prices have continued to rise. Since the "government" is paying for everything our system is milked for everything it's worth. Everything is charged at the MAXIMUM price and you are given the maximum number of tests. After all who cares as long as the "government" pays for it right?

So now medical prices for tests, procedures, etc are being charged to the max to milk profits from the government guess what happens to insurance prices for others? Yep you guessed it. Since the everything is charged at the maximum the insurance company has to charge you a shit ton to cover itself because even though you aren't getting government help you'll still be getting charged the high prices created by it.


So take away government input and, like I said earlier, the medical industry is FORCED to act like a competitive market. That means for them to make money they have to offer you the BEST service at the BEST prices. This of course causes prices to plummet just like it does with ANY technology backed/service industry.

So what happens when prices plummet due to competition? Medical insurance can't keep charging you insane prices and keep your business. They are forced to become competitive as well and since they don't have to cover insanely inflated medical costs your rates drop DRAMATICALLY.

So now that individual doctors offices are having to be competitive with each other and medical prices are dropping guess what this allows you to do....yes like I mentioned earlier you'll now just be able to pay CASH for your basic checkups throughout the year.

Don't think it's possible? Well get this: There are a few truly free market medical clinics that try to compete in field. They don't get any medical assistance, don't take medicade or medicare, etc. Do you know what they charge for a basic doctor checkup for things like the common cold, etc? Answer: $35!!!!!!!!! The funny thing is that many people think that sounds insanely cheap but in reality it's still insanely good pay considering the most people don't actually have more than 5 minutes of contact with the actual doctor during a routine visit. He's making $35 of just minutes of work. And remember this is with free market clinics that are trying to compete in an unfair system. If the entire market was free prices could be even LOWER.

So now think about that for a second. Let's just raise the price of the last example and say that a routine visit would cost you $50 cash. Now how many times do you go in for a routine office checkup per year? I think most would agree that the average American doesn't go to the doctor more than 3-4 times a year.

So now why would the average person need to pay medical insurance every single month to cover routine checkups? The answer: You wouldn't. The only type of insurance you would need would be to cover MAJOR medical events/emergencies/etc. For the few routine visits you have per year you'd simply pay cash and that's that.

Ok so now medical prices are cheaper, insurance is cheaper AND you don't need coverage any more for routine checkups? Do you know what that means? Yep. You now have even MORE money in your pocket each month to pay for the now CHEAPER services.

The chain reaction of goodness continues even further. With all of this now occurring guess what happens to all of the charity sponsored hospitals that provide completely free medical services to those at the very bottom of the income ladder?

Charity hospital services would be BOOMING. How's that?

1. Since medical prices have dropped to be market competitive now every donated dollar will go exponentially as far. The money that would only cover treating 50 children a day on the old system with inflated prices would now cover maybe 2,3 even 4 times as many kids. Hell it might even be more than that.

2. The middle class that makes up the largest number of charity donations now has MORE MONEY to give because they themselves aren't having to shell out shit tons of cash to cover their own expenses.

Money going farther + more of it = poor people getting health care for free without illegally stealing it from the working mans pay check.

Bottom line: Reduced government spending/control + truly free market = America becoming America again. This BTW applies to EVERYTHING, not just health care imo.

[Sdallnct]

There is only so far you can go with that idea...take the example of living in a $250,000 house. Why insure it at all? I mean if it burns to the ground pay cash and have contractors compete for your business. But how much lower are you going to get? Lets say insurance company was going to $250,000 to rebuild your house, thru your fine negotiating skills and multiple bids you get 25% off that. Heck lets say you know 33% off that. Can you afford to rebuild on your own?

My son had three broken fingers that required pins, two surgeries and 8 weeks of physical therapy. I have a copy of the total costs at home. Even if it cost 50% less I would have had a very difficult time affording it.

But then some would argue why go thru all that? Having bent fingers and limited flexibility in them is not that big of deal?

[bhk]

Well a private insurance company would never pay for those things. So now is the arguement for private and against goverment?

For example on that simple headache you couldn't get a MRI and expent private insurance to pay.

Private insurance companies have co-pays and deductibles. Patients, depending on their policies, are responsible for the first $2,000 and then usually 20% afterwards. Private insurance usually don't cover using the ER for non-emergencies.
The private insurance company would pay for the MRI if a physician decided that the person with the headache needed one. And believe me, the physician will order at least one MRI for a simple headache because they don't want to get sued. Now if someone keeps coming back with the headache even after one MRI is neg, they won't keep ordering one a week.

[orangecrush]

Healthcare costs have risen significantly in every area except elective cosmetic surgery because that is paid for in cash and people shop around while surgeons compete for that cash business. In other words, I agree. But we need to take more things in healthcare towards that cash system(or credits to taxes for money spent on healthcare) than to have more people covered by third party payors
It could also be because the supply of cosmetic surgery is high. I said it in the other thread, but I think it bears repeating: There is no way to pool risks to offset the effect of a catastrophic loss without some kind of third party payer. I personally think combining HSA with high deductable insurance is a possible sollution to our current problem.

[murphy_wmm]

Hey, jesse!
Baby, I got your money!
Don't you worry,
I said hey!
Baby, I got your money!


(only in the USA do they see dollar signs and a 'free market' opportunity when it comes to a person's health and life. LMAO)

[bhk]

It could also be because the supply of cosmetic surgery is high.
Why is it high?
There is no way to pool risks to offset the effect of a catastrophic loss without some kind of third party payer. I personally think combining HSA with high deductable insurance is a possible sollution to our current problem.

I don't disagree with that.

(only in the USA do they see dollar signs and a 'free market' opportunity when it comes to a person's health and life. LMAO)

Even those "enlightened" Europeans who don't see Euro signs are seeing Euro signs because their systems are not sustainable in the long run.

[murphy_wmm]

The classic universal healthcare/socialized medicine question. I am totally against any form of socialized healthcare.

I can hear the flames coming now...
But what about the kids! Care to debate the fact that there are so many kids in this country without healthcare!? You selfish, heartless bastard!

Care to debate the fact that I'm not responsible for someone elses kids? If you want to have kids and can't afford health insurance for them then what in the heck makes you think you have the right to take money out of MY pay check to support your bad life decisions? When you do that you are hurting MY ability to provide a better life for myself and MY future kids.

In my opinion, a truly free market/private/competitive health care system is the answer to our health care problems. I honestly can't believe how anyone supports any type of government run health care, regardless of what you want to call it, once you understand how free markets work.

In a truly free market system we'd all be paying CASH for all basic doctor checkups. Your average American would only need health insurance plans to cover major medical events.

"Pay cash you say...but zOMG nobody will be able to afford that" I don't think so. . In a truly free market system health care will have to be COMPETITIVE to make money. This means providing the BEST services possible at the LOWEST prices to earn your service.

Our government involvement in medicine is the exact reason medical prices have continued to rise. Since the "government" is paying for everything our system is milked for everything it's worth. Everything is charged at the MAXIMUM price and you are given the maximum number of tests. After all who cares as long as the "government" pays for it right?

So now medical prices for tests, procedures, etc are being charged to the max to milk profits from the government guess what happens to insurance prices for others? Yep you guessed it. Since the everything is charged at the maximum the insurance company has to charge you a shit ton to cover itself because even though you aren't getting government help you'll still be getting charged the high prices created by it.


So take away government input and, like I said earlier, the medical industry is FORCED to act like a competitive market. That means for them to make money they have to offer you the BEST service at the BEST prices. This of course causes prices to plummet just like it does with ANY technology backed/service industry.

So what happens when prices plummet due to competition? Medical insurance can't keep charging you insane prices and keep your business. They are forced to become competitive as well and since they don't have to cover insanely inflated medical costs your rates drop DRAMATICALLY.

So now that individual doctors offices are having to be competitive with each other and medical prices are dropping guess what this allows you to do....yes like I mentioned earlier you'll now just be able to pay CASH for your basic checkups throughout the year.

Don't think it's possible? Well get this: There are a few truly free market medical clinics that try to compete in field. They don't get any medical assistance, don't take medicade or medicare, etc. Do you know what they charge for a basic doctor checkup for things like the common cold, etc? Answer: $35!!!!!!!!! The funny thing is that many people think that sounds insanely cheap but in reality it's still insanely good pay considering the most people don't actually have more than 5 minutes of contact with the actual doctor during a routine visit. He's making $35 of just minutes of work. And remember this is with free market clinics that are trying to compete in an unfair system. If the entire market was free prices could be even LOWER.

So now think about that for a second. Let's just raise the price of the last example and say that a routine visit would cost you $50 cash. Now how many times do you go in for a routine office checkup per year? I think most would agree that the average American doesn't go to the doctor more than 3-4 times a year.

So now why would the average person need to pay medical insurance every single month to cover routine checkups? The answer: You wouldn't. The only type of insurance you would need would be to cover MAJOR medical events/emergencies/etc. For the few routine visits you have per year you'd simply pay cash and that's that.

Ok so now medical prices are cheaper, insurance is cheaper AND you don't need coverage any more for routine checkups? Do you know what that means? Yep. You now have even MORE money in your pocket each month to pay for the now CHEAPER services.

The chain reaction of goodness continues even further. With all of this now occurring guess what happens to all of the charity sponsored hospitals that provide completely free medical services to those at the very bottom of the income ladder?

Charity hospital services would be BOOMING. How's that?

1. Since medical prices have dropped to be market competitive now every donated dollar will go exponentially as far. The money that would only cover treating 50 children a day on the old system with inflated prices would now cover maybe 2,3 even 4 times as many kids. Hell it might even be more than that.

2. The middle class that makes up the largest number of charity donations now has MORE MONEY to give because they themselves aren't having to shell out shit tons of cash to cover their own expenses.

Money going farther + more of it = poor people getting health care for free without illegally stealing it from the working mans pay check.

Bottom line: Reduced government spending/control + truly free market = America becoming America again. This BTW applies to EVERYTHING, not just health care imo.

Well some of that sounds nice and all, but since the USA's healthcare is not "socialized" (as you conservatives like to call it) then how come this supposed 'free market' thing is not happening?! The problem is that the 'free market' is not really that free. Government intervention has been replaced by corporate monopolies. I think you are living in a dream world.

[jessecrx]

Well some of that sounds nice and all, but since the USA's healthcare is not "socialized" (as you conservatives like to call it) then how come this supposed 'free market' thing is not happening?! The problem is that the 'free market' is not really that free. Government intervention has been replaced by corporate monopolies. I think you are living in a dream world.

I'm flattered! You responded to my post twice! ;)

What were those programs called that I always see? Oh yeah, Medicare and Medicaid. Funny how these programs are mostly used in my area by people with 20inch bladed escalades and bling out the yin yang but that's a whole other topic.

You think I am living in a dream world? I may see things in a different light, but I am not living in a dream world. I think the ones living in a dream world are those people that don't want to take responsibility for their own decisions who instead use the image of the "poor helpless child" to flip the blame onto the rest of America who is trying provide a good life for THEIR own kids.

But yeah it's ok to screw over everyone else's kids though right? Let's just increase the welfare state so we actually ENCOURAGE people to have no reason to take responsibility for themselves.

Don't want to work? No problem. The government will actually PAY you to not work or contribute to society.

Don't want to take care of your kids? We'll have that covered to. Why have to take responsibility for yourself when you can just screw over all of the hard working people by forcing them to pay to take care of them for you./sarcasm

But back to what you were saying about govt intervention/monopolies.
A truly free market and competitive system will deal with monopolies. The bigger question you have to understand is though is that if the services are provided at a cost that the people can afford then the existence of a monopoly doesn't matter. As long as the outcome you desired is reached then why ask the question as to the method in which it is achieved?

The reasons this is occurs is that a monopoly becomes a monopoly for a reason. That is because it provided the best services at the best prices.

If a monopoly gains majority control over a certain service (which it of course would because then it wouldn't be called a monopoly lol) and then starts to raise it's prices to levels that people are not satisfied with guess what happens? Answer: It would CREATE a market for competition. The monopoly, by over inflating it's prices, creates a demand for a lower priced competitor to undercut it.

Of course you'll just say "but then the Monopoly, since it has such vast resources, can then just undercut the competitor until it drives him out of the market". This is of course exactly correct. The monopoly, through it's well polished and well funded business machine, is able to keep costs extremely low and keep competitors out of the market. Now ask yourself what exactly is the problem in that? Since the monopoly is providing the best services at extremely low prices then there is nothing to complain about. When it DOES raise it's prices out of reach then the market and competition checks it back into place or else it no longer becomes a monopoly.

Let's take Microsoft for instance. They essentially had a "monopoly" on the home computer operating system market. However as long as their software worked well and was reasonably priced then consumers had no reason to complain.

Now if Microsoft decided to start charging $1000 for Windows while providing less features because they have the "monopoly" what do you think would happen? It would open up a HUGE demand for another operating system company to come in and under cut Microsoft. Microsoft of course is completely aware of this and thus is forced to continue to provide a good service at a reasonable price.

You have to understand that having a free market doesn't mean the government would have no oversight. There are plenty illegal things companies can do to give themselves unfair advantages. The government, to maintain a TRULY free and competitive system, would have every right to keep these companies in check. However the government doesn't need to be subsidizing some of them to create a false "competitive" market.

And of course a doctor making $35 per visit TODAY isn't going to be able to be an "ultra-balla" because a doctor in today's system has to make up for all of the insanely inflated costs. If you are in a system where costs are lower and the courts reign in the insane malpractice suits $35 per 5 minute visit will make tons more profit than if compared against our current system. Not to mention I used $50 as an example anyway because that would still be cheap as hell when you factor in how infrequently most people go to the doctor each year vs how much they currently shell out for insurance.

Who wouldn't accept care from someone that is MORE dedicated to their job and helping society than one who is simply concerned about getting rich?? :)

It just blows my mind how some people(not saying you are one of them) can't understand that our government doesn't pay for anything. It's YOUR money that pays for it. You are just giving it to the government so that THEY can try to decide a solution for EVERYONE instead of you using your own money to make the best decisions for YOURSELF. Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to understand this and believe they will be getting health care "for free" lol.

If you believe a bureaucrat in Washington can make your own personal life decisions and spend your money better than you can then you are quite likely ...ah I'm not gonna say it.

Anyway, here is one doctor's opinion on this very problem
Doctor James Brook on health care after switching his practice to free market

The problem of health care for the uninsured has been solved. The solution, as usual, lies in free markets.

I am actually a part of a small, but growing, movement of doctors who have "opted out" of the third-party payment system and simply charge patients directly. No insurance contracts, no medicare, no medicaid, just direct payment at the time of service, from the person who receives the service.

The results? Throughout June and July of this year, my average charge was $37 per patient. Sounds affordable? Well, get this – that fee includes housecalls, some antibiotics and other medications dispensed, and lab fees!!!!!

Wait a minute, did that guy just say housecalls? Nobody does housecalls any more! Well, a doctor who employs free market principles can provide the kind of care that a patient wants, including housecalls. The patient is the customer, not the insurance company or the taxpayer.

By not contracting with third parties for payment, I do not have the kind of overhead that is needed to contend with those bureaucrats. Medical Economics magazine pegged the annual overhead for a family physician without obstetrics at roughly $272,000 per year in 2003. Mine is less than one tenth of that. A typical FP collects about 60% of his charges. I have collected 101%, due to tips. Yes, patients frequently tip me.

I calculated that if I charge $30 for something now, in order to come out the same, I would need to charge $107 if I had the same financial constraints as most doctors. I would have an extra $34 in overhead per patient, raising the fee to $64. Then to collect that $64, I would have to charge $107.

I can also offer generally same-day service, flexible hours, and adequate time with patients. I charge by time, so I am not financially pressured to gloss over issues or reschedule for later. I have even combined my office with my home. I call this Modern Medical Care with Old Time Service.

I am not really the first to be doing this; it was the typical practice model decades ago. There is a group of physicians, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, comprised of many like-minded doctors, that advocates just this sort of practice.

As far as morality is concerned, the free market approach is supremely ethical. Nobody has money confiscated from them, under threat of deadly force, to pay my fees for somebody else's health care. That is the way Medicaid and Medicare work. My patients willingly pay me, and for the most part, they seem very grateful for the service they get.

One might think that America has free market health care, and that is our problem. After all, we are the only developed nation that yet lacks socialized medicine. How blessed we actually are, that we have not become completely socialized. After all, Canada's own supreme court ruled in 2005 that their prohibition on private care "interferes with life and security of the person as protected by s. 7 of the [Canadian] Charter." That was because people were dying on waiting lists.

So where do we lack for free markets? First, health insurance premiums are tax deductible if paid by employers, and now the tax deductibility has expanded with health savings accounts. This makes health benefits much more valuable than salary, skewing the perceived cost of health care.

Next, welfare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Initiative Program now are the payors of over 50% of health care dollars. The massive sets of regulations that they have spawned have been adopted by private insurers.

The Food and Drug Administration blocks entry of effective new drugs into the market for many years, and drives the cost of developing a new drug to about $800 million. While the sale of drugs is being blocked, people are suffering and dying.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Stark laws, state-mandated insurance coverage for specific services, abuse of court power through malpractice, and even licensure itself, all combine to tie the health care industry into knots of red tape. There is very little free market at all left.

The ray of hope shining through our fog of government interference is found in the doctors who choose to stay as far out of it as they can. We are not a large percentage of doctors, but we are becoming more known. We can try to influence other doctors to do the same. We can try to educate the citizenry. We can try to slow down the advancement of socialism in the halls of government.

The free market is the most moral and effective approach to health care, as it is to our other economic activities. It has brought better goods and services to people than any other system. It is time we restored free markets in medicine. Health care is much too important to let government continue to mess it up.

[classicman2]

:lol:

[movielib]

:lol:
What a brilliant response. Can I use it? I'll promise to give you credit.

Great posts, jessecrx.

[eXcentris]

Ah come on that stuff is funny. I mean really:


We can try to slow down the advancement of socialism in the halls of government.


Booga booga! :lol:


The free market is the most moral and effective approach to health care, as it is to our other economic activities.


Yes, how "moral" to view health care as an economic issue and not as a social one.
And then one wonders why the US sucks at dealing with said social issues...

To me that way of thinking isn't moral, it's just sad.

[eXcentris]

A system that provides the greater well-being for the greatest number is certainly moral. One that accomplishes it while not only preserving but enhancing freedom is indeed remarkable.



Wake me up when the later is invented. :)

[eXcentris]

Thank god I have a good mattress :)

[jessecrx]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-16u9x3tfE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-16u9x3tfE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Yep, I am dreaming alright :rolleyes:

This vid touches on not only SS, but healthcare as well.

[classicman2]

What a brilliant response. Can I use it? I'll promise to give you credit.

Great posts, jessecrx.

His post reminds me of many of your posts - so full of inaccuracies that they're actually funny.

[movielib]

His post reminds me of many of your posts - so full of inaccuracies that they're actually funny.
I wish I could say your posts were funny. Then there'd be one thing good about them.

[classicman2]

I enjoy reading posts from someone who has 19th Century ideas about the role of government.

[movielib]

I enjoy reading posts from someone who has 19th Century ideas about the role of government.
That figures since you haven't had any new material since then.

Your statist ideas go back to before the 19th century BCE. Only the schemes, rhetoric and rationalizations have gotten more clever.

[orangecrush]

It could also be because the supply of cosmetic surgery is high.
Why is it high?

Good question. Perhaps cosmetic surgery is very attractive to doctors who what high profit margins w/ 9-5 hours. I don't know if malpractice insurance is relatively inexpensive for cosmetic surgeons vs. other doctors. Perhaps Cosmetic surgery is easier than general practice. I don't really know. I just think that there is more to the question of why the cost of cosmetic surgery is rising at a smaller rate (or dropping in some cases) than other health care. No third party payments seems like an insufficient answer to me.

[classicman2]

That figures since you haven't had any new material since then.

Your statist ideas go back to before the 19th century BCE. Only the schemes, rhetoric and rationalizations have gotten more clever.

You and others refuse to accept that the role of government has to change since the Constitution was written. The world has changed. The U.S. has changed. Therefore, the role of government in our society must change.

That's a fact. If you argue against that - you argue against the realities.

[wendersfan]

<i>Mod note: Gentlemen (and I use that word sincerely), tone it down a bit.

We all know the two of you disagree fundamentally on the nature and tole of government. There's no need to take it to the level this is heading.</i>

[movielib]

<i>Mod note: Gentlemen (and I use that word sincerely), tone it down a bit.

We all know the two of you disagree fundamentally on the nature and tole of government. There's no need to take it to the level this is heading.</i>
I though I might get my first mod reprimand ever. :banana:

I was just having a little fun and I know a lot better than to have ever escalated it. My tongue was firmly in my cheek and that last one was intended to be my last.

[wishbone]

You and others refuse to accept that the role of government has to change since the Constitution was written. The world has changed. The U.S. has changed. Therefore, the role of government in our society must change.

That's a fact. If you argue against that - you argue against the realities.If by change of government you mean that government must continue to expand like Mr Creosote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Creosote) in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_The_Meaning_of_Life), gorging itself at the trough of exacting taxation to the point of gluttony, then I say no thank you.

[classicman2]

I said the country has changed since The Constitution was written. The role of government also must change to reflect the current realities of that change. We are a world power with many far flung national interests. We weren't a world power in 1790, and we didn't have far flung national interests.

[wishbone]

We weren't a world power in 1790, and we didn't have far flung national interests.We won our independence from the world superpower at the time, Britain, and that was not achieved in a vacuum as far as European powers (world powers) were concerned...

[classicman2]

What has that have to do with what I said?

[jessecrx]

You and others refuse to accept that the role of government has to change since the Constitution was written. The world has changed. The U.S. has changed. Therefore, the role of government in our society must change.

That's a fact. If you argue against that - you argue against the realities.

What has to change? In a funny way you are right. Since our govt has gotten involved in entitlement programs and welfare programs, people ARE getting more and more change as time progresses :)

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

Let me know when we get to those points I put in bold print ;)

[movielib]

What has to change? In a funny way you are right. Since our govt has gotten involved in entitlement programs and welfare programs, people ARE getting more and more change as time progresses :)
...
Let me know when we get to those points I put in bold print ;)
Jesse, I like your posts but oops, it's the Declaration of Independence you quoted, not the Constitution.

[classicman2]

Is it appropriate to say this :lol: ?

[saoirse]

I oppose Socialized/Universal Health Care. After living in Canada for 20 years, I know how bad it is. And contrary to popular belief, it is not free. I currently pay about the same right now as I used to in Canada, but I can actually see a doctor if I want and not limit my questions to one issue per visit. Also, if I needed an MRI or something else, I wouldn't have to wait 9 months like I did in Canada.

[pedagogue]

Too bad our ignorance and prejudice continue to keep so many in poverty and suffering around the world.

Nah...that's called capitalism.

-p

[classicman2]

Government intervention certainly has increased the cost of health care.

As I said before - so has private health insurance companies.


The V.A. (last time I checked it was part of the government) has actually reduced the cost of health care with the department's negotiations with the drug companies - up to 43% for the cost of prescription drugs.
_______________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Too bad our ignorance and prejudice continue to keep so many in poverty and suffering around the world.



Nah...that's called capitalism.

-p

:lol:

[Johnny Fever]

I oppose Socialized/Universal Health Care. After living in Canada for 20 years, I know how bad it is. And contrary to popular belief, it is not free. I currently pay about the same right now as I used to in Canada, but I can actually see a doctor if I want and not limit my questions to one issue per visit. Also, if I needed an MRI or something else, I wouldn't have to wait 9 months like I did in Canada.

While no system is perfect, I'll take Canada's health care system over the US anyday. Despite our problems, Canada consistantly ranks among the better health care systems in the world and the US doesn't.



WASHINGTON (AFP) - France is tops, and the United States dead last, in providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens, according to a survey Tuesday of preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries.

The study by the Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs measured developed countries' effectiveness at providing timely and effective healthcare.

The study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," was written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.

The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.


The non-profit Commonwealth Fund, which financed the study, expressed alarm at the findings.


"It is startling to see the US falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, who noted that "other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less."


The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.


Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.


White the United States ranked 15th of 19 between 1997-98, by 2002-03 it had fallen to last place.


"It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the US," said Ellen Nolte, lead author of the study.


Had the United States performed as well as any of the top three industrialized countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year, the researchers said.

[saoirse]

While no system is perfect, I'll take Canada's health care system over the US anyday. Despite our problems, Canada consistantly ranks among the better health care systems in the world and the US doesn't.

Despite the problems? Come on now. The fail of the system and its huge waiting times for tests and surgery causes DEATH. That's why those who can afford it, fly down here to get treated. A system that has you wait months to years for tests is a failed system. It's that simple. People have been spouting their propaghanda for years. When I first moved here I was quite surprised at how many people actually thought that healthcare in Canada was free. They were amazed when I told them I pay about the same a month for it (but actually get to see a doctor in a timely fashion here and not have them try to get me in and out as quick as possible - like the conveyor belt system I was used to) and that didn't include the amount of taxes that went to fund the failed system. And as I've stated before, as someone who has experienced both systems, I must say the current U.S. system is head and shoulders above the Canadian one. It's also, just as affordable. Statistics are sometimes skewed against the U.S. because idiots don't get insurance (most spending their money on less important things) and then bitch and moan about the service they get when they have a problem. The simple solution is for them to get the damn heath insurance. Be it car insurance, health insurance, home insurance, life insurance, people need to weigh the cost and need and decide. If they decide to spend that money on something else, it's their own fault.

[Johnny Fever]

Despite the problems? Come on now. The fail of the system and its huge waiting times for tests and surgery causes DEATH. That's why those who can afford it, fly down here to get treated. A system that has you wait months to years for tests is a failed system. It's that simple. People have been spouting their propaghanda for years. When I first moved here I was quite surprised at how many people actually thought that healthcare in Canada was free. They were amazed when I told them I pay about the same a month for it (but actually get to see a doctor in a timely fashion here and not have them try to get me in and out as quick as possible - like the conveyor belt system I was used to) and that didn't include the amount of taxes that went to fund the failed system. And as I've stated before, as someone who has experienced both systems, I must say the current U.S. system is head and shoulders above the Canadian one. It's also, just as affordable. Statistics are sometimes skewed against the U.S. because idiots don't get insurance (most spending their money on less important things) and then bitch and moan about the service they get when they have a problem. The simple solution is for them to get the damn heath insurance. Be it car insurance, health insurance, home insurance, life insurance, people need to weigh the cost and need and decide. If they decide to spend that money on something else, it's their own fault.

Did you read the article that I posted? It's says the US health care system ranks last in preventing death versus 18 other industrialized countries. Canada ranks fifth among those 19 countries. Again show me any study that ranks the US healthcare system ahead of Canada's and I'll give you credit. Survey after survey, Canada rank's ahead of the US. Are you telling me that all these independant studies are bias against the US?

How is the US system head and shoulders above the Canadian model? It's certainly not more efficient as the information provided by the original poster on the first page shows that the US spends more than any country on health care. So you really can't claim that our tax dollars are being funded into a failed system since Canada spends less on each person versus the US on health care and according to the study provides better care in preventing death. Yes our taxes are higher in Canada, but our taxes are certainly not being wasted on our healthcare system (they are unfortunately being wasted elsewhere but that's another story).

If you call Canada's healthcare system a failure, what do you call a health care system where 45 million people in the US have no coverage? And just having insurance is unfortunately not enough. How often do you have to read stories about American's getting denied coverage for operations despite having insurance? Insurance companies will always find ways to deny coverage in order to keep their profits up. Again show me which system is a failure.

[Sdallnct]

How is the US system head and shoulders above the Canadian model? It's certainly not more efficient as the information provided by the original poster on the first page shows that the US spends more than any country on health care. So you really can't claim that our tax dollars are being funded into a failed system since Canada spends less on each person versus the US on health care and according to the study provides better care in preventing death. Yes our taxes are higher in Canada, but our taxes are certainly not being wasted on our healthcare system (they are unfortunately being wasted elsewhere but that's another story).

If you call Canada's healthcare system a failure, what do you call a health care system where 45 million people in the US have no coverage? And just having insurance is unfortunately not enough. How often do you have to read stories about American's getting denied coverage for operations despite having insurance? Insurance companies will always find ways to deny coverage in order to keep their profits up. Again show me which system is a failure.

I don't know where how they measure this. I have private health care coverage and have never, ever had any issues. (two children being born, severe phenomia, broken fingers, wife had female issues, etc, etc)I do not want to give it up, period. You can raise my taxes to help pay for people who cannot afford what I have, but do not take away what I have. Period.

Taking what I have away from me to give me something less of value so that everyone else can have some coverage makes no more sense to me then forcing me to buy less groceries so that others can have some food. Or forcing me to buy a smaller house so someone else can have a house. I have no problems donating money or even paying more in taxes.

With my high deductible that I chose to carry, I often pay for stuff on my own. I have no problem with this. I have never had a problem getting to see a DR regardless if I was paying or my insurance was.

There are over 300 million people in the US, so the argument that the system doesn't work since 45 million have no insurance...is rather odd to me. That means 85% of the country does have insurance of some form or fashion. Doesn't it make more sense to address the 15% then all 100%?

You statement that "Insurance companies will always find ways to deny coverage..." is a stupid, stupid statement. Insurance companies are in business to pay claims. That is the only reason they exist. It is a simple media thing. How big of a story is it "Insurance company pays claims timely". That is no story. But of course any refused coverage is a story regardless if is warranted.

And as we have discussed before, why do you think coverage denial would be any different if the government ran health care? Medicare and Medicaid both have limitations and exclusions. There are things not covered. Period. You cannot have insurance that covers everything, all the time, without question. Well actually you can, but the problem is you couldn't afford the premiums or taxes for such a system. At least in the private market if you don't like the service you receive, you can change. A single goverment program you are stuck, regardless.

[classicman2]

Insurance companies are in the business to make money!

[Sdallnct]

Insurance companies are in the business to make money!

And how would they pay claims if they didn't make money? You have to take in money to pay money...that's how it works.

Would you prefer they didn't make money and not pay claims?

[al_bundy]

Did you read the article that I posted? It's says the US health care system ranks last in preventing death versus 18 other industrialized countries. Canada ranks fifth among those 19 countries. Again show me any study that ranks the US healthcare system ahead of Canada's and I'll give you credit. Survey after survey, Canada rank's ahead of the US. Are you telling me that all these independant studies are bias against the US?

How is the US system head and shoulders above the Canadian model? It's certainly not more efficient as the information provided by the original poster on the first page shows that the US spends more than any country on health care. So you really can't claim that our tax dollars are being funded into a failed system since Canada spends less on each person versus the US on health care and according to the study provides better care in preventing death. Yes our taxes are higher in Canada, but our taxes are certainly not being wasted on our healthcare system (they are unfortunately being wasted elsewhere but that's another story).

If you call Canada's healthcare system a failure, what do you call a health care system where 45 million people in the US have no coverage? And just having insurance is unfortunately not enough. How often do you have to read stories about American's getting denied coverage for operations despite having insurance? Insurance companies will always find ways to deny coverage in order to keep their profits up. Again show me which system is a failure.


the 45 million figure is not true

everyone in the US can go into any hospital and get cared for without anyone asking them their about their ability to pay

[classicman2]

And how would they pay claims if they didn't make money? You have to take in money to pay money...that's how it works.

Would you prefer they didn't make money and not pay claims?

I was responding to the assertion that insurance companies were in the business to pay claims. They're in the business to deny claims if they possibly can. Paying claims cost them money.

[al_bundy]

i know people that work for medicaid which is like an HMO here and they deny claims all the time. just because the government runs healthcare doesn't mean you get all you want

[classicman2]

I didn't say they did. In Social Security (HICFA), it's the job of the employee to protect the Trust Fund. That means there are strict laws, regulations, and rules that have to be followed. It's not a candy store; but, I'll argue that the business of government is not to make money; but, that most assuredly is the 'business' of private companies.

[Sdallnct]

I was responding to the assertion that insurance companies were in the business to pay claims. They're in the business to deny claims if they possibly can. Paying claims cost them money.

Paying claims that are not covered costs everyone else who has coverage with that company in the form of higher rates.

If you mean they deny claims that are not covered, you are correct.

Paying covered claims does not cost them money. They already collected premiums to pay for them. Paying claims not covered does cost them as they never collected money for that. You want your insuance company to pay quickly for covered claims (the vast majority do, the vast majority of time) and you want them to not pay for claims not covered so rates will stay reasonable.

[Sdallnct]

I didn't say they did. In Social Security (HICFA), it's the job of the employee to protect the Trust Fund. That means there are strict laws, regulations, and rules that have to be followed. It's not a candy store; but, I'll argue that the business of government is not to make money; but, that most assuredly is the 'business' of private companies.

This is interesting and something to consider. However, you would need to define "profit" and "make money".

The government must "make money". It has overhead, it has employees to pay, etc, etc. So really what we are talking about is the true, end of the day "profit". In the context of health insurance do you think cutting out the profit will really make that much difference? I would argue that the government is so much LESS efficient that it would eat up any savings from not making or needing to make a profit.

Plus, you can't just look at profit as a negative. It encourages a company to be more efficient. For example, I recently read where Southwest Airlines bought a lot of futures in fuel which is one reason it has not had to up ticket prices or increase fuel charges like other airlines. Now why would SWA buy futures in fuel? Of course to make more money, but also so they would be more competitive and keep rates lower then there competition.

[GreenMonkey]

This is interesting and something to consider. However, you would need to define "profit" and "make money".

The government must "make money". It has overhead, it has employees to pay, etc, etc. So really what we are talking about is the true, end of the day "profit". In the context of health insurance do you think cutting out the profit will really make that much difference? I would argue that the government is so much LESS efficient that it would eat up any savings from not making or needing to make a profit.

Plus, you can't just look at profit as a negative. It encourages a company to be more efficient. For example, I recently read where Southwest Airlines bought a lot of futures in fuel which is one reason it has not had to up ticket prices or increase fuel charges like other airlines. Now why would SWA buy futures in fuel? Of course to make more money, but also so they would be more competitive and keep rates lower then there competition.

But profit also can encourage shadiness to make money.

Look at it this way. I bought a DVD from a powerseller on ebay. He had a very good percent rating. I never got anything. I investigated further and it seemed like he screwed one out of maybe 20 people - he got to keep the money and not hand anything out.

Insurance companies operate like this and I think some of us realize that. I don't have to be the one screwed over to see it.

"That's not flood damage, that's WIND damage". "You had a symptom of a nasty headache last year so we're not covering this cancer treatment". Etc. Finding every reason under the sun NOT to pay out increases profits.

[orangecrush]

"That's not flood damage, that's WIND damage". "You had a symptom of a nasty headache last year so we're not covering this cancer treatment". Etc. Finding every reason under the sun NOT to pay out increases profits.
It also get's you investigated by the government. No A rated insurer is going to deny every claim citing every reason under the sun.

[Sdallnct]

But profit also can encourage shadiness to make money.

Look at it this way. I bought a DVD from a powerseller on ebay. He had a very good percent rating. I never got anything. I investigated further and it seemed like he screwed one out of maybe 20 people - he got to keep the money and not hand anything out.

Insurance companies operate like this and I think some of us realize that. I don't have to be the one screwed over to see it.

"That's not flood damage, that's WIND damage". "You had a symptom of a nasty headache last year so we're not covering this cancer treatment". Etc. Finding every reason under the sun NOT to pay out increases profits.

First is simply doesn't happen that way. Why? As stated you would be investigate or sued or all your customers would change to a different insurance company.

I assume you mean the flood v wind down on the coast. Again the only reason it is an issue at all is because people didn't buy flood. Had they, it would not be the issue it is.

Your example IMHO proves my point. If that ebay seller ripped you off will you purchase from them again? No of course not, but you will purchase from ebay again, won't you? If you truly feel a private insurance company ripped you off, what would you do? Sue? Complain to the state department of insurance? Switch to a different insurance company?

Now what if there is only a national health plan run by the government and you truly feel they rip you off? What do you do? Do you sue the federal government? Yea...good luck with that. Do you complain to a department of insurance? Yea...good luck with that. Do you switch to a different insurance company? You can't there are no others.

Insurance is like any other business. You don't like one, you go to another. Unless you have no choice. So the question is, do you want choice or not? Personally I'd rather pay a little more (even tho I don't think it would be more) to have the choices I have now, then pay a little less and lose all choices.

[GreenMonkey]

Insurance is like any other business. You don't like one, you go to another. Unless you have no choice. So the question is, do you want choice or not? Personally I'd rather pay a little more (even tho I don't think it would be more) to have the choices I have now, then pay a little less and lose all choices.

It's a little late at the point that you have cancer, or your kid is going deaf in both ears (see: Michael' Moore's doc), or whatever, and your claim is being rejected. You can't change insurance companies at that point. Pre-existing condition exclusions apply there.

And it's not like you can shop around prior and find a perfect insurance company with clean hands. Doesn't exist. For that matter, you normally only have a few choices from your employer (I think I have 4-5 choices).

The point is, a governmental agency should hopefully have the patient's wellbeing as its first priority, because there is no desire to deny claims to make more money. Insurance companies, however, make more money, the more claims they deny - up to a certain extent (too many people attract notice, etc).

Did any of you guys watch Michael Moore's Sicko? He's got tons of anecdotal cases were people were denied for ridiculous reasons. These insurance companies employ people JUST to go through people's medical records and find reasons (however flimsy) to deny their claims.

It's lilke my ebay seller. The insurance company finds reasons to deny the claims of say half a percentage point of people - maybe the ones with huge, huge treatment bills - and it saves them millions each year. The other 99.5% of people are happy. Of course, they aren't the ones being screwed over.

[ukywyldcat]

I haven't been reading this thread, but I was listening to some commentary yesterday and a point was made that about 80% of all Americans pay quite more for their property tax than they do for their health insurance, and why aren't the pols talking about property tax relief instead of universal health care? Relieve the property taxes and people can pay their own health care (although many would choose to spend the money elsewhere, but thats their perogative).

So I was thinking about this. The health care I buy from Blue Cross of California costs me $504 per month for a family of three.

The property taxes for my little 3 bedroom home are roughly $833/month.

There is a real problem in this country when property taxes on a 1800 square foot three bedroom home dwarf health insurance payments. And what do property taxes pay for? Education? I don't even have a kid in the school system. And should education cost so much more than health coverage?

Property taxes ought to be the discussion, not free or universal health care for all. Property tax relief as the answer to health insurance could be a very viable solution for the so-called "health care crisis".

Oh but wait...what about all those poor wittle people that rent. They be so leftz in the coldz.

[bhk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508714&in_page_id=1770

Thousands of lives at risk under NHS plans to cost-cut on heart devices, doctors warn
Last updated at 21:57pm on 16th January 2008

Comments


Warning: Doctors say cutting back on stents for hearts could cost lives
Thousands of lives could be at risk if a cost-cutting ban on life-saving heart devices is rubber stamped today, doctors warned.


The Health Service could be told to stop issuing drug-coated stents, tiny tubes inserted into arteries which release drugs to prevent the arteries narrowing again.

These are better for some patients than standard, bare metal ones but cost double the price at £600 each.

Last summer the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence said that although drug-eluting stents work, they were not cost-effective.

It is about to give its verdict on the matter.

Around 30,000 patients a year in the UK are treated with the devices but cardiologists estimate 12,000 of these would have to be treated with open heart bypass surgery as an alternative rather than a bare metal stent.

Not only would this be more expensive, the NHS could not cope with a 50 per cent rise in operations.

The British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, which has campaigned against a ban, said it could end up costing an extra £60million a year.

Spokesman Dr Martyn Thomas said: "It's a ludicrous situation because the Nice committee assumes cardiologists will default to using bare metal stents and save the NHS money.

"They have got it completely wrong."



I guess that's one way to get rid of surplus population that increases health costs.

[Sdallnct]

It's lilke my ebay seller. The insurance company finds reasons to deny the claims of say half a percentage point of people - maybe the ones with huge, huge treatment bills - and it saves them millions each year. The other 99.5% of people are happy. Of course, they aren't the ones being screwed over.

1st I totally disagree with you. There is no "conspiracy" to deny claims. There is no reason to. You can argue all you want that is saves the company money but insurance doesn't work that way. They have already taken in the money to pay the claims. There is no reason to deny covered claims.There is no benefit. But there is a huge down side. They can have a class action suit, that can lose their license to sell, they can get huge penalties from the state, they can lose customers, etc, etc. An insurance company will make plenty of money if they charge the correct premium and pay every single covered claim.

I get the feeling you are saying that health insurance should cover everything, all the time, without question. That type of policy doesn't exist because you could not afford it. Even current government insurance policies (medicare, medicaid, flood) have restrictions and deny coverage to people. So that part is the same, right?.

But you actually say that 99.5% of people are happy and you still want to change the entire system? How does that make sense? If indeed those few people have been wrongly denied their claim they have a recourse in the current system. And as I say, IMHO you would have more recourse with a private company then the federal government.

[ukywyldcat]

Polls like this should be public polls. I think it would be interesting who the Socialists are.

[wendersfan]

Polls like this should be public polls. I think it would be interesting who the Socialists are.Advocating universal health care doesn't make one a Socialist, nor does it make one a socialist.
There is no "conspiracy" to deny claims.Maybe not where you work, but at the insurance company where I worked there most assuredly was.

[classicman2]

Automobile insurance adjusters (like health insurance claims examiners) try their best to pay claims. They don't want to deny anybody. :lol:

Where does this idea that insurance companies are happy to pay claims come from?

[GreenMonkey]

An insurance company will make plenty of money if they charge the correct premium and pay every single covered claim.

That's only if they take in the correct amount and correctly predict the future. Since no one has devised a future-predicting device there is plenty of unreliability there.

Or need I remind you of the financial difficulties insurance companies got into with the Katrina disaster?


Maybe not where you work, but at the insurance company where I worked there most assuredly was.


Like wenders says, there is. Michael Moore interviewed a person whose job was soley to dig through people's medical records and find reasons (no matter how flimsy) to reject claims. There's others that say that they were expected to deny a certain x% amount of claims.

Claims = less profit = bad. Pretty simple. I don't understand why someone wouldn't understand that companies are going to want to minimize claim payouts to maximize profits.

[orangecrush]

Automobile insurance adjusters (like health insurance claims examiners) try their best to pay claims. They don't want to deny anybody. :lol:

Where does this idea that insurance companies are happy to pay claims come from?
I do agree that insurance companies would rather have lower combined ratios than higher ones. However, what makes you think that a government run system would be less heartless? Hard choices have to be made about coverage in the U.K. all the time about what services will be the most beneficial. Some people get screwed because they have a condition that the board no longer deems worthy to be covered.
Did any of you guys watch Michael Moore's Sicko? He's got tons of anecdotal cases were people were denied for ridiculous reasons.
Tons of anecdotal evidence hardly proves the charge of conspiracy.

[The Bus]

Whoever hijacked grundle's account and is posting under his name. Be warned, the mods are watching you.

:lol:

I was ready to make some joke reply until I saw facts.

I like the idea of universal health care, but prefer it in the form of preventative medicine: regular doctor checkups, etc. I'm not sure how much of that is already being covered through things like Medicaid, SCHIP, or state-specific programs.

I don't mind a small amount of money going out of my paycheck to help people less fortunate than myself to get basic healthcare. I don't like the idea of any money coming out of my paycheck to pay for people's health problems that they brough on themselves, namely through poor choices in nutrition, taking care of themselves, smoking, etc.

To date, I can't think of a single system that would accurately be able to tell the difference between the former and the latter for everyone.

:shrug:

[classicman2]

I do agree that insurance companies would rather have lower combined ratios than higher ones. However, what makes you think that a government run system would be less heartless? Hard choices have to be made about coverage in the U.K. all the time about what services will be the most beneficial. Some people get screwed because they have a condition that the board no longer deems worthy to be covered.

Tons of anecdotal evidence hardly proves the charge of conspiracy.

I worked for a government agency (SSA) that paid out claims - a whole bunch of them - many more than any insurance company.

That's why SSA doesn't not make the disability decision on disability claims.
They are made by a state agency. That's not true with insurance companies. They make the decision.

Social Security merely determines whether the individual meets the insured status requirements - whether he/she is fully and currently isnured. It's a black and white thing. It doesn't require human intervention by the SS office.

[orangecrush]

I worked for a government agency (SSA) that paid out claims - a whole bunch of them - many more than any insurance company.

That's why SSA doesn't not make the disability decision on disability claims.
They are made by a state agency. That's not true with insurance companies. They make the decision.

Social Security merely determines whether the individual meets the insured status requirements - whether he/she is fully and currently isnured. It's a black and white thing. It doesn't require human intervention by the SS office.Not to sound like a jerk, but doesn't that sort of make the SSA much more susceptible to fraud than an insurance company?

[Sdallnct]

That's only if they take in the correct amount and correctly predict the future. Since no one has devised a future-predicting device there is plenty of unreliability there.

Or need I remind you of the financial difficulties insurance companies got into with the Katrina disaster?



Like wenders says, there is. Michael Moore interviewed a person whose job was soley to dig through people's medical records and find reasons (no matter how flimsy) to reject claims. There's others that say that they were expected to deny a certain x% amount of claims.

Claims = less profit = bad. Pretty simple. I don't understand why someone wouldn't understand that companies are going to want to minimize claim payouts to maximize profits.

There was only one insurance company that I'm aware of that went out of business because of recent events. Yes, they lost money. So? That is exactly what an insurance company expects. Some years they make money some years they don't. Then they adjust premiums as needed.

You notion of "minimize" claims to maximize profits is simple. And against the law.

[The Bus]

I work in the "healthcare" (bunch of crap) industry. Our company makes a profit from developing software to help find ways to deny more claims to make more money for our clients. Even people that are properly insured get screwed over by most insurance companies.

Source: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=417574&cid=22038632

[GreenMonkey]

You notion of "minimize" claims to maximize profits is simple. And against the law.

Why would it be illegal? There's probably some fine print legalese to back up most of these decisions somewhere.

How many examples of this do we have to cite? Look at the link the Bus posted.

You don't have to believe in a conspiracy. I don't believe in any conspiracies. But plenty of people have come out and said that is exactly what they do. They dig through records and find reasons to deny them coverage.

I'm sure retroactively denying cancer coverage because you didn't report your pre-existing condition of a migaine headache 2 years before is probably perfectly legal in the fine print somewhere.

[Sdallnct]

Why would it be illegal? There's probably some fine print legalese to back up most of these decisions somewhere.

How many examples of this do we have to cite? Look at the link the Bus posted.

You don't have to believe in a conspiracy. I don't believe in any conspiracies. But plenty of people have come out and said that is exactly what they do. They dig through records and find reasons to deny them coverage.

I'm sure retroactively denying cancer coverage because you didn't report your pre-existing condition of a migaine headache 2 years before is probably perfectly legal in the fine print somewhere.

See again, what you are asking for is all coverage, all the time, with no exceptions. You can get that today. Just call up your local Lloyds of London representative and have them quote you that. You simply cannot have a reasonable price policy that covers everything all the time with no exception. It is to costly. And that will NOT change in a "universal" or "national" system. You MUST have exclusions and things not coverage. In fact, I would argue if you want to cover 100% of everyone, you have to have more exclusions and things not covered so all can afford it.

I appreciate the discussion with you, but I think we are both embedded in our belief. You want "universal" coverage to mean everything is covered all the time. I totally 100% agree with you. I want that to. I would love to have that. The problem is how such a system could be made affordable. I'm trying to explain that an insurance policy is a contract between two people. The exclusions and coverage limitations are put in there not to get out of paying claims, but to keep the policy affordable while covering the vast majority of things that could happen.

Oh some random guy posting to a blog makes the system worthless. Come on. Again. If you, Michael Moore, or that guy have something that is illigal it should be brought to the proper athorities. Not posted to some blog or put in a movie. As has been mentioned previously in the thread;

-the vast majority of people in the US have some sort of health coverage
-the vast majority of people who have heath coverage are happy with it
-health coverage isn't even that expensive when compared to other things (home taxes, utility bills, new car payments, let alone a mortgage).

I do think something should be done to help the poor who cannot afford coverage. Just like I feel we should help the homeless and thost that cannot afford food. But I don't believe in throwing out the entire system.

[parrotheads4]

-the vast majority of people who have heath coverage are happy with it
-health coverage isn't even that expensive when compared to other things (home taxes, utility bills, new car payments, let alone a mortgage).

Of the people who have health coverage, and are happy with it; how many have actually used it? I've heard that most of the people who are "happy" with there coverage have not used it.

I pay $1,200/month for family health coverage. That's 2 adults, and 2 kids.

[GreenMonkey]

You're asserting that insurance companies act benevolently for the good of their customers first, and yes, the make a moderately planned profit while they are at it that's ok. At least that is what is sounds like to me.

That's not realistic. Companies function first and foremost to make a profit.

Did you see the testimonials from people that do exactly that? As the wikipedia Sicko article puts it : "former employees of insurance companies who describe cost-cutting initiatives that encourage bonuses for insurance company physicians to deny medical treatments for policy holders"

Do you hold that this kind of thing doesn't take place? Do you not believe these testimonials?

Sure, it might be (MIGHT be) LEGAL to scrape around and deny someone's cancer claim retroactively because they didn't report a headache 2 years ago, but is that acceptable? Is that really in the best interests of the people? Does that sound like a good system?

Did you actually watch Sicko? Because I think it is easily Moore's strongest documentary with the best points he has ever made (as opposed to F. 9/11 which went a little whack on the conspiracy suggestions, for example). There's a lot of flaws in the American system and Moore does a good job pointing out some of them. He may not focus on the costs of some of the nationalized systems, but as grundle's thread points out, we already spend more than most of those nations.

There's a reason that the discussion is going on now, and it has become a big political issue.

[Sdallnct]

You're asserting that insurance companies act benevolently for the good of their customers first, and yes, the make a moderately planned profit while they are at it that's ok. At least that is what is sounds like to me.

That's not realistic. Companies function first and foremost to make a profit.

Did you see the testimonials from people that do exactly that? As the wikipedia Sicko article puts it : "former employees of insurance companies who describe cost-cutting initiatives that encourage bonuses for insurance company physicians to deny medical treatments for policy holders"

Do you hold that this kind of thing doesn't take place? Do you not believe these testimonials?

Sure, it might be (MIGHT be) LEGAL to scrape around and deny someone's cancer claim retroactively because they didn't report a headache 2 years ago, but is that acceptable? Is that really in the best interests of the people? Does that sound like a good system?

Did you actually watch Sicko? Because I think it is easily Moore's strongest documentary with the best points he has ever made (as opposed to F. 9/11 which went a little whack on the conspiracy suggestions, for example). There's a lot of flaws in the American system and Moore does a good job pointing out some of them. He may not focus on the costs of some of the nationalized systems, but as grundle's thread points out, we already spend more than most of those nations.

There's a reason that the discussion is going on now, and it has become a big political issue.

And again you have the notion that any business is bad.

Look at it this way: Southwest airlines is a private company. By your argument they should not be. They should have the safety of the passengers 1st and foremost. But your argument is that they can't. That first and foremost profit is their driving force. So they should not be an airline, the government should take over all airlines. Again, by your argument.

You are very close to saying what I believe. A private insurance company should be allowed to make a reasonable profit. I don't think anyone argues with that. My point is that how does any company make a reasonable profit? How does SWA do it? By putting stick safety guidelines in place, following all laws and providing excellent customer service (including on time departures).

So how does a private insurance company make a reasonable profit? By putting policies in place to protect the customer, by following all laws and by provided excellent customer service (including paying claims timely).

Do I believe what those folks say is true? No I do not. Do I believe THEY believe it? Yes I do. They are making the claim that A + B MUST = C. They denied a claim + they are a private company = they denied a claim for profit.
People who study and know insurance realize you must deny claims not covered (and not collected money for) so that you will have the money to pay for claims that are covered. If you use money for covered claims to cover claims that are not covered, then where will the money come from for the covered items?

Do some individuals break the law or are mistakes made. Of course. But again, how would it be different if the government ran health care? It wouldn't.

I'm not saying the current system is perfect. However, I have not seen or heard anything better. Have you? I'd love to hear it. All I ever hear is "system suck, system suck". That is the easy part (if you believe that). But what are you going to do about it? Hand it over to the government who will have to handle it EXACTLY like a private company. They will have employees who will make mistakes or think something is not covered and will have to deny people coverage that is not covered. Again...where is the improvement?

[eXcentris]

Did you see the testimonials from people that do exactly that? As the wikipedia Sicko article puts it : "former employees of insurance companies who describe cost-cutting initiatives that encourage bonuses for insurance company physicians to deny medical treatments for policy holders"



Remember the former medical reviewer, testifying before the US Congress, who guiltily recalled: "I was told I was not denying care. I was denying payment." Of course she was attacked by her former employer Humana afterwards.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=9983

And this is only an excerpt...


Managed care organizations take money in and then “save” or make money to the extent that they pay out as little as possible. Like a huge funnel lined with myriad filters, the system functions to avoid, limit, substitute, obstruct, delay and deny care in whatever ways possible. Even legitimate “savings” are often siphoned off into non-medical uses – high executive salaries and bonuses, lavish headquarters, company perks, and other rewards for “good business,” not to mention the millions I witnessed spent on artwork. Meanwhile, harm and death to patients slowly escalated.

[parrotheads4]

If universal health care becomes a reality I think I'll quit my job. What's left to work for? Maybe I'll take a part time job to make enough money for good wine, dining out, and traveling. Come to think of it...shouldn't the gov't provide all of us with cars? We all need to get around after all.

[Superboy]

I love reading oversimplified arguments like this with oversimplified data. Why America spends more on health care is a more important issue than how much is being spent.

Is it because we have a greater propensity for sickness and injury?

Is it because of rising costs incurred by the health care industry?

Is it because the American people are more willing to pay more?

Is it because more people seek out health care, and we have better record keeping?

And simply saying "well, if other governments can do it for cheap, so can we!" with only vague descriptions as to how those models of health care actually function is not a solution. The author immediately posits that because we spend more privately, if health care is moved into a socialist model we will spend less, without any indication of how or why.

[GreenMonkey]

I'm not saying the current system is perfect. However, I have not seen or heard anything better. Have you? I'd love to hear it. All I ever hear is "system suck, system suck". That is the easy part (if you believe that). But what are you going to do about it? Hand it over to the government who will have to handle it EXACTLY like a private company. They will have employees who will make mistakes or think something is not covered and will have to deny people coverage that is not covered. Again...where is the improvement?

There's a fundamental difference here. You don't believe the myriad testimonials from people talking about how they deny claims to improve profitability. You believe they are simply meeting their fine print as promised.

I don't think these are mistakes or misconstrued goals. It seems to me an obvious trend of denying expensive claims and procedures simply because they can drum up some slim justification to do so - to make a profit. As people testify, people are employed simply to come up with reasons to deny claims (even ridiculously flimsy reasons, sometimes, if there is enough money involved). There seems to be enough evidence to show there is definitely a concern there.

Theoretically, a government handled agency providing this same service would not do this. Because their goal is not to make money for their stockholders, but simply to provide service as best they can within their constraints.


So how does a private insurance company make a reasonable profit? By putting policies in place to protect the customer, by following all laws and by provided excellent customer service (including paying claims timely).


This is a misconception. Do they make a reasonable profit by providing excellent customer service to everybody? Why then, does Best Buy label some people Devil Customers and choose to not get their business? Because you don't need 100% customer service to 100% of people. Realistically you can afford to screw a few percent of people that make you lose the most money while most people think you're fantastic.

[parrotheads4]

Maybe we should start a list of impacts changing the current system to a universal system would have. I'll start:

1. Less motivation to work hard to get a job that provides coverage.
2. Salaries of medical professionals would be controlled by the gov't. causing the most capable people to go elsewhere in the workforce for success.
3. Health care is closed on Christmas.
4. The insurance industry suffers massive layoffs.
5. Bumps and bruises once ignored are now treated at emergency rooms.
6. Tech companies/drug companies reduce R&D due to pricing controls.
7. Retirement benefits for medical professionals will now be provided by the gov't. Gov't responds by changing retirement age to 75.
8. Having good coverage, Americans feel safer eating fast food. Many take up smoking because they like it - what the hell...chemo is covered.
9. Workers comp is abolished.
10. Mexicans go back to Mexico in order to get better care.
:)

[classicman2]

Do you seriously believe your number 2?

[parrotheads4]

Do you seriously believe your number 2?

Yes. In time.

[Superboy]

Maybe we should start a list of impacts changing the current system to a universal system would have. I'll start:

1. Less motivation to work hard to get a job that provides coverage.

Higher salaries for workers because employers no longer have to pay insurance or offer health plans for individuals.

2. Salaries of medical professionals would be controlled by the gov't. causing the most capable people to go elsewhere in the workforce for success.

Salaries are no longer controlled by an enormous bureaucracy of HMOs.

3. Health care is closed on Christmas.

I don't recall hospitals being closed on Christmas.

4. The insurance industry suffers massive layoffs.

Good.

5. Bumps and bruises once ignored are now treated at emergency rooms.

Long-term health problems are treated before they cause serious illness - such as cardiovascular disease - that lead to an emergency room visit.

6. Tech companies/drug companies reduce R&D due to pricing controls.

Why this postulation is made constantly is far beyond me. It's not as if pharm companies are in constant competition with one another. How many different brands of pharmaceuticals do you really have choice of right now?

7. Retirement benefits for medical professionals will now be provided by the gov't. Gov't responds by changing retirement age to 75.

Would you like to elaborate on this point?

8. Having good coverage, Americans feel safer eating fast food. Many take up smoking because they like it - what the hell...chemo is covered.

As opposed to punishing people who contract disease through no fault of their own?

9. Workers comp is abolished.

Okay, on the one hand, you think that people will naturally always exploit any benefit offered to them or generally be much more careless given the cushion of socialized medicine, but worker's compensation is somehow excluded from this argument?

10. Mexicans go back to Mexico in order to get better care.
:)

The only people that really benefit from health care offered in countries like Mexico and Thailand are people from first world nations.

[Sdallnct]

There's a fundamental difference here. You don't believe the myriad testimonials from people talking about how they deny claims to improve profitability. You believe they are simply meeting their fine print as promised.

I don't think these are mistakes or misconstrued goals. It seems to me an obvious trend of denying expensive claims and procedures simply because they can drum up some slim justification to do so - to make a profit. As people testify, people are employed simply to come up with reasons to deny claims (even ridiculously flimsy reasons, sometimes, if there is enough money involved). There seems to be enough evidence to show there is definitely a concern there.

Theoretically, a government handled agency providing this same service would not do this. Because their goal is not to make money for their stockholders, but simply to provide service as best they can within their constraints.



This is a misconception. Do they make a reasonable profit by providing excellent customer service to everybody? Why then, does Best Buy label some people Devil Customers and choose to not get their business? Because you don't need 100% customer service to 100% of people. Realistically you can afford to screw a few percent of people that make you lose the most money while most people think you're fantastic.

I rather stay with what I got and now have and save the "theoretical" for philosophers. Besides, even if you are correct (which I don't think you are), you are assuming everything else stays the same. It won't. Since there is no profit or stockholders, no competition and customers who have no choice but buy from you, they will be incredibly inefficient. They will waste away your money and taxes will go higher and higher to pay for it.

I do not believe it to be a misconception. I bought a TV from Conn's and had terrible, terrible service. I will never buy from them again. But just because I got terrible service should I say that all TV's should only be sold by the government? Of course not. That is silly.

I think we need to define "screw". I still don't think we are on the same page. If you are saying "screwing" means not paying for non-covered stuff. Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. And again by that definition, under a government plan they would also "screw" people. Read a medicare or medicaid or flood policy. All insurance. All by the government. All have exclusions and things not covered (heck a flood policy has more not covered then is covered). Where is the difference? There is none.

Speaking of flood, did you read all the complaints about flood after the hurricane? Limited coverages no living expenses, etc, etc. And that is a government program. Why do we think a government health program would be any different?

You can't just throw out something not covered and say "that's minor, they should cover it". Either something is covered or it is not. Period. Are there differences of opinion? Of course. And there are remedies that you would likely not have under a government program.

[Sdallnct]

Good.





This always cracks me up. I don't work in the health insurance field, but assuming the government takes over so all private health insurance companies go out of business...where do you think those workers will go? Who will now need health insurance people? The government. So they will just become government employees....heck most of them would get better pay and benefits from the government. LOL

[Superboy]

This always cracks me up. I don't work in the health insurance field, but assuming the government takes over so all private health insurance companies go out of business...where do you think those workers will go? Who will now need health insurance people? The government. So they will just become government employees....heck most of them would get better pay and benefits from the government. LOL

It's what happens to workers in any industry when a better way of doing things is found. They have to find something new.

[classicman2]

The government 'runs' Medicare & Medicaid.

How many health insurance companies have gone out of business?

Reminds me of the 'slippery slope' argument that a bunch of our conservative members likes to throw around.

[Sdallnct]

It's what happens to workers in any industry when a better way of doing things is found. They have to find something new.

Oh I totally agree...no arguement here. But by far the biggest expense other then paying claims for an insurance company is overhead including staffing. The government will have exactly the same issue. No savings there.

Basically my point is, I now pay premiums for health insurance. If the country goes to a national program then instead of premiums I will pay more in taxes. Were is the difference? How is it better? Now I have choice (heck I can even decide to go without health insurance and pay as I go). Or I can go with company A over company B. Or I can go with a HMO or Group or HSA (in 20 years or being married/kids I have tried all three).

And yes, I have "used" the coverage. A lot. So much so there is no way in my life time or my kids lifetime that my premiums will ever pay for all the claims they have paid me. And I have received nothing but good, positive service.

[Sdallnct]

The government 'runs' Medicare & Medicaid.

How many health insurance companies have gone out of business?

Reminds me of the 'slippery slope' argument that a bunch of our conservative members likes to throw around.

That's a good point. How many private health company's are there in Canada? France or other countries with a national plan? I'm not being an A$$ I really don't know.

I would think, to be as effecient as possible these countries would require everything to go thru them. But I don't know that.