65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 10:40 pm
@okie,
Medicare is not the only factor to interfere with market signals. Employer paid or assisted medical insurance produces its own distortions by shielding the patient from the full cost. I'm not saying either is a bad thing, but they do distort the market.
auroreII
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:06 pm
@MASSAGAT,
Ahem, ...Massachussetts has the highest health care costs in the world.
auroreII
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:12 pm
@okie,
One of the reasons better than fifty percent of doctors have been supporting single payer health care is because they don't like having to deal with the thousands of insurance companies in the country and dealing with each of these company's own rules and regulations.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Regarding obesity and health issues, I don't seem to recall Conservatives promoting any real ideas to deal with the underlying problem, and when Democrats try to, it's nothing but cries of 'anti-business!' from our side. What's it going to be?


I recall one amendment that proposed lowering premiums for non-smokers and those that maintained a healthy body weight. It passed with bipartisan support in the Senate Finance Committee. I don't think it made it's way into the final bill.

Kind of like people who drive responsibly get lower rates on auto insurance than those with bad driving records.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:45 pm
@Irishk,
It made it, or at least the converse. Insurance companies are either allowed or required to raise the premiums of smokers by 50%. This is the only penalty for lifestyle choices that has been included.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:48 pm
@roger,
Thanks, Roger. I'm still trying to wade through it.

BTW...you know who was against it? The American Cancer Society. They thought it would be too 'punitive'.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:50 pm
@Irishk,
I hesitate to say it, but I think that puts you ahead of many congresspersons.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 11:55 pm
@roger,
If that's the case, they soon may be learning the law of unintended consequences.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:14 am
@roger,
roger wrote:

Medicare is not the only factor to interfere with market signals. Employer paid or assisted medical insurance produces its own distortions by shielding the patient from the full cost. I'm not saying either is a bad thing, but they do distort the market.

Very excellent and salient points, roger. I have mentioned these factors before, and although many so-called conservatives have ignored or wish to ignore these factors in the mix, some conservatives have suggested that these problems need to be addressed, perish the thought even John McCain I believe had some ideas to address these factors.

Some of the things I have expressed about this before would be to make sure we have a level playing field, such that if a company provides an insurance or perk, such as medical insurance, it is essentially part of their pay, part of their salary, and it should be taxed as income. After all, why not? If a company provides a car, a vacation home, tickets to a professional team games, whatever, it is the same thing as cash, they all have value, and they are income or employee compensation. And why tie medical insurance to employment? If so, why not homeowners insurance or auto insurance? Why not make employers pay for housing, or groceries, or a pleasure boat for every employee, after all every healthy employee needs a healthy recreation? Face it, there are personal responsibilities, and they should be no business of employers, it all needs to have a sharp line drawn between what is a personal responsibility and an employer function. We have fuzzied the line for far too long.

If I have learned anything in this life about capitalism, the best way to control costs and quality of product or service delivered, that control is maximized when it affects the right hip pocket of the individual that receives the product or service, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. I have personally saved thousands of dollars more than once by reviewing my own medical invoices from doctors and hospitals, and have found charges for stuff that was not even provided. I am certain that these charges would have slipped by the insurance company, and likewise Medicare. We know for a fact that Medicare and Medicaid are riddled with rampant corruption, fraud, waste, and inefficiency, yet arrogant bureaucrats and self serving politicians charge ahead with more crap that will only enlarge the fraud, waste, corruption, and inefficiencies of Central Planning, while ignoring the beauties of the free market which could be utilized to fix the mess that we are in. If anyone thinks I am irritated with Democrats, they are correct. I have spent my entire life working and being responsible enough to provide for first class medical care for myself and my family, only to see the losers try to foist their wrong-headed solutions onto everyone, and make us pay for it.
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:26 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Actually, health care is simple common sense, it works not much different than any other responsible industry, whereby free markets will most assuredly deliver the best health care in the world, and that is what America has done.


Yes, except for the fact that this is completely untrue. America doesn't have the best HC in the world by any stretch of the imagination.

Forget lifespan - just look at the cost per person, per year, to pay for that lower lifespan. It is much higher then many other countries.

Cycloptichorn


Cost-per-person isn't exactly a good measurement - at all really. Perhaps they simply do less for their patients. Perhaps their patients are simply more healthy - which we know to be a fact from just about every article on the subject. Perhaps their laws are such that physicians do not bend over backwards to ensure the patients doesn't file a complaint or lawsuit. For example, I read an article not terribly long ago about infant mortality. In England, there are protocols dependent on gestational age. The physicians are not required to perform heroic measures on a neonate below a certain age. Here, we'll put that kid on every machine and drug possible to keep him alive for 2 months knowing full-well that he can't survive on his own and then ask the tax payers to fork over the 4 million dollars to pay the bill.

There are many, many things that influence cost which can be vastly different between countries - to the point that it cannot reasonable be compared.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:36 am
@sstainba,
sstainba wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Actually, health care is simple common sense, it works not much different than any other responsible industry, whereby free markets will most assuredly deliver the best health care in the world, and that is what America has done.


Yes, except for the fact that this is completely untrue. America doesn't have the best HC in the world by any stretch of the imagination.

Forget lifespan - just look at the cost per person, per year, to pay for that lower lifespan. It is much higher then many other countries.

Cycloptichorn


Cost-per-person isn't exactly a good measurement - at all really. Perhaps they simply do less for their patients. Perhaps their patients are simply more healthy - which we know to be a fact from just about every article on the subject. Perhaps their laws are such that physicians do not bend over backwards to ensure the patients doesn't file a complaint or lawsuit. For example, I read an article not terribly long ago about infant mortality. In England, there are protocols dependent on gestational age. The physicians are not required to perform heroic measures on a neonate below a certain age. Here, we'll put that kid on every machine and drug possible to keep him alive for 2 months knowing full-well that he can't survive on his own and then ask the tax payers to fork over the 4 million dollars to pay the bill.

There are many, many things that influence cost which can be vastly different between countries - to the point that it cannot reasonable be compared.


Whatever the factors are - we ought to be looking at other places and finding out how they keep their costs so low, while extending the lifetimes of their citizens! It isn't good enough to say 'they are a different place then us' and leave it at that. Not acceptable.

It's equally a dodge to say their citizens are 'just healthier.' That's bullshit. I suppose you could be referring to dietary and lifestyle choices, but without persuasive evidence, it's hard to take that argument seriously.

And it isn't like it's a secret why their costs are so low in many places... single-payer health care or socialized health care removes a huge amount of waste and profiteering, and gets rid of hundreds of thousands of unnecessary paperwork jobs.

One way or another, the idea that the US has the best healthcare in the world is a complete joke. It is not supported by the data.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:51 am
The only way to lower the cost of health care and health insurance is to remove the government from the equation.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:18 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

If a company provides a car, a vacation home, tickets to a professional team games, whatever, it is the same thing as cash, they all have value, and they are income or employee compensation.


True. I resisted the concept almost entirely because when we started the recent press for health care legislation, the objective was to get as many people covered as possible. In that sense, anything discouraging participation seemed very counterproductive. In the final analysis, of course, a subsidy for employer assisted coverage is being paid for everyone, including those who could not, or did not believe they could afford their own coverage. Hardly meets any kind of fairness test. In any case, a reduction of a subsidy doesn't really qualify as a tax increase.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:45 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
And why tie medical insurance to employment? If so, why not homeowners insurance or auto insurance? Why not make employers pay for housing, or groceries, or a pleasure boat for every employee, after all every healthy employee needs a healthy recreation? Face it, there are personal responsibilities, and they should be no business of employers, it all needs to have a sharp line drawn between what is a personal responsibility and an employer function. We have fuzzied the line for far too long.


You need to explore the history of health insurance to find a response for it.

You won't find in the in the US-health insurance history, but have to go to some country which have a longer tradition of it - like Germany, which had the first mandatory health insurance in 1883.


Before that, the guild, many factories, some co-ops already provided health insurances - for their members, according to what the earned (see e.g. the Health Insurance for Tobacco Workers from 1843, or the various guild statutes from an earlier period).

The law in 1883 made it mandatory for all ... fees according to what someone earns.

And since most (most) mandatory health insurances were/are just "regional variations" from this German law, most have (had) something similar as well.

The principle behind it is of course sourced in the Christian tradition of solidarity.

Private insurances follow the very same principles (at least here), since they were founded at the same time ... and see their origin in the very same sources.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:51 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Does private health insurance take into account the risks factors involved in the various occupations.

Would a truck driver or a welder have to pay more that a lawyer for example?

Or, to be a bit more general, a blue collar worker more than a white collar worker.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:09 am
@spendius,
If you address that question to me - it's different in Germany.

You can only be privately insured if you are self-employed or earn more than 4.162,50 Euro gross rate of salary per month.

The health insurances don't make a difference but of course accident insurers do.
Priivat health insurers here have different tarifs for different age groups, genders and personal state of health.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:14 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Gee Walt-- it's hard explaining the simplest things.

Our free for all service makes no difference. Does private health insurance in the US take into account occupations?

According to what I have read the US has been careful not to do any serious research on the matter using some lame excuses. One does wonder why.

Is the opposition to UHC coming from those in nice safe jobs who don't want to pay for the risks of those in less safe jobs but are happy to utilise their efforts in other respects.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:31 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Our free for all service makes no difference.


Nor does the mandatory insurance here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:16 pm
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2010/03/29/this_modern_world/story.jpg

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:35 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Nice, Walter, but it doesn't address the issue of whether employer paid or assisted insurance should be subsidized by taxpayers who have no health insurance at all. Better jobs have better benefits. Should those with low paid jobs and no health insurance nor other benefits see part of their taxes being used to make up for income taxes not paid by others with better jobs and company paid medical insurance? Okie is saying they should not. I agree, and we are talking about medical insurance in the US.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.66 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 01:44:20