Health Care for Everyone

[mr_VOLCANO]

Look at the norwegian healthcare system, enough said

 

[Famine]

What I'm saying is if we made it so it was easier for companies to sell health insurance you'd still end up with what car insurance is. Pretty much all the insurers in the US are underwritten too by a handful of companies too, I learned this while recently shopping for a new policy, so you get a pretty standard industry pricing for your given criteria.

The way I see it is that insurance companies would pressure the government to enact laws making health insurance compulsorily, even if you completely take Obama's Healthcare Reform out of the picture. Essentially I believe no matter what you do your are going to end up with the insurance companies winning in the end and the population losing unless there is some major change with the way we currently do things.

But, ultimately, so long as a company sells a product that you don't have to buy, its prices and value are affected only by consumer trends and demands - free market.

Of course companies want to make more money by getting more customers. Making insurance into a cartel like car insurance would be superb for them as they have a captive market and they can sell whatever they want at whatever price they want - you have to buy something and there's no way to opt out of it. That's not an argument against health insurance, but an argument against legislation mandating possession of any product.

The desire to make profit is what makes private companies good in a free market economy and bad in a socialist market economy. When driven by consumer trends and demand, competing companies offer better rates, better products or both to attract new customers and increase profit - they also seek to minimise costs for same. When there's a captive market they don't have to offer better rates or better products because the customer will always buy a product regardless (they have to - it's the law), but they'll still seek to minimise costs and that often means worse products. And you still have to buy into it!

The only reason car insurers get away with it is that cars are themselves optional... bodies aren't, so quite how health insurers would get away with it outside of Obamacare escapes me - and Obamacare only gets away with it by selling the big, fat lie that it's about looking after the poor people in society and guilt-trip lines like "A society must be judged by how it takes care of its less fortunate" (not a dig at MTHF - someone else somewhere else used the same line the other week defending the NHS) and not about devalueing the health care of the entire country by forming a health insurance cartel.

Which is the biggest thing I have against Obama's plan, it basically would make it so the insurance companies win. The only way I can see that the people would win is if we had a universal healthcare system.

Ever notice customer service at the DMV is bad? Where else will you go?

Taking all considerations about the inequality of paying for it and associated morality out of the equation (it's a big step, but I know we come at it from opposing points so it's not helpful), an ideal universal healthcare system is brilliant. Everyone gets what they need in the time they need it without dropping a penny at point of use.

The problem is that it's run by the same people that run the DMV and the IRS. Everyone gets what the accountants and managers think they should get in the time it suits them and you end up with a multi-tier system - the NHS is "free" so long as you don't need vision correction, dental surgery or self-administered medication. You don't pay for your heart transplant or any of the drugs used (for the anaesthetic, for example) during it, but you do pay an administration fee for any of the drugs you need to stop you dying afterwards (or in the months before); you don't pay for your cataract operation or any of the drugs used during it, but you do pay for the glasses you have to wear if you're short or long-sighted; you don't pay for your jaw to be repaired in A&E after it's broken in a sports accident, but you do pay for your dentist to repair your teeth from same. And, of course, it's a monopoly - you can opt out for better treatment, but you still have to pay for it...

If you could, somehow manage to create a universal healthcare system that wasn't in the hands of the state nor required to use by the state... you might just get away with it... Otherwise any legislation will create either a cartel (bad for consumers, great for businesses) or a monopoly (bad all round).

 

[arora]

Directly to the point and addressing the side of gov, insurance co, and consumer;

"Bureaucracies themselves should be assumed to be noxious, authoritarian parasites on society, with a tendency to augment their own size and power and to cultivate a parasitical clientele in all classes of society."

William E. Simon

 

[Famine]

And, depending on whom you ask, the NHS is the world's largest employer...

Nuff said.

 

[Dapper]

Car insurance is mandatory - a legal requirement if you want to run a car on the roads. This is why it can be run as an effective cartel, as you have to buy it from somewhere and the larger few companies run pretty much all of the market (as it is in the UK - almost all insurers are owned, or underwritten, by three companies). Health insurance is not (yet) mandatory - you don't have to have it if you want to run a body. This is why it has to be competitively priced and customer oriented.

Part of Obamalife is mandatory health insurance, from the public sector if you don't have private insurance. The way car insurance is run is a terrific argument against mandatory health insurance - with the only difference being that you can buy into the one-size-fits-none public option, run by the same people who run the FDA, the DMV and the IRS...

A car can be "run" legally without car insurance except public roads. A body can be "run" without insurance anywhere currently, but if you work under the rule of government, which is totally optional, you should have health insurance. And it isn't real hard to understand why in my opinion. A car can affect me by running me over, and my neighbor having a premature death means he has kids that are now orphaned and need to be taken care of. Both things directly affect me, and both things can be mitigated by mandatory insurance, but it is not really mandatory unless you want the fruits of living in a society.

And the DMV in Parkersburg has been great since I've been going there. In the past 3 years I've been in there maybe an hour in total, and that includes my wife getting her license and all the test that come with it. Back at the Martinsburg DMV, the amount of people they service is much larger and I never sat in there for more than a few minutes either. And the FDA, it is great also, just like the EPA. Of course many ignoramus folk don't get that because they don't take the necessary paperwork to the DMV is what makes their visit bad, and they don't understand how bad life without the EPA and FDA use to be, you know, like rivers catching on fire and stuff, but that doesn't mean the empirical proof that these organizations work is not true.

And just note that Obama is not making anything public mandatory. Like my kids can take their own lunch to school, but a government lunch is available. Health insurance is no different.

 

[Famine]

Car insurance is mandatory - a legal requirement if you want to run a car on the roads.

Car insurance is a legal requirement for car owners (if they wish to drive on the public road)

A car can be "run" legally without car insurance except public roads.

Well, I'm certainly glad you pointed that out. No-one would have known that otherwise...

(it's actually worth pointing out that it isn't true, but that's just nuance)

A car can affect me by running me over, and my neighbor having a premature death means he has kids that are now orphaned and need to be taken care of. Both things directly affect me

Jaw-dropping. Simply... jaw-dropping.

Also, since when was health insurance life insurance? Is life insurance mandatory?

And just note that Obama is not making anything public mandatory. Like my kids can take their own lunch to school, but a government lunch is available. Health insurance is no different.

Except the part where it'll become illegal to not have health insurance - you will be required to buy it. If you choose not to buy private healthcare insurance, you will buy public healthcare insurance - opting out is a criminal offence! Of course that means the private industry then has a baseline of terribleness they can bring their services down to meet and a bar of pricing they can move their premiums up to meet. And the only people that lose out is... everyone!

 

[arora]

lolwut?

There is indeed an 'individual mandate' In fact it's been deemed unconstitutional in many states and is now slated for this session of the u.s. supreme court.

edit: tree'd

 

[Dapper]

And the only people that lose out is... everyone!

Except the majority of the public that can receive better care. Don't forget that part.

Well, I'm certainly glad you pointed that out. No-one would have known that otherwise...

It is certainly easy to be a smart ass by taking things out of context. Maybe if you would not erase most of what I said you would understand something.

Also, since when was health insurance life insurance? Is life insurance mandatory?

What does life insurance have to do with a lack of health insurance causing a premature death? Quit your nonsense editing and take what I say in context and you might begin to digest and comprehend more than a sentence at a time.

 

[Famine]

Except the majority of the public that can receive better care. Don't forget that part.

Receiving better care by paying more for a worse service? Remarkable.

The majority currently have private health insurance. They will be detrimentally affected.

It is certainly easy to be a smart ass by taking things out of context. Maybe if you would not erase most of what I said you would understand something.

Your argument for mandatory health insurance to prevent societal burden is facile. See below:

What does life insurance have to do with a lack of health insurance causing a premature death?

Life insurance pays out on your premature death, taking care of your dependents. Health insurance has nothing to do with it. You're arguing that health insurance should be mandatory to prevent society having to look after some kids because their parent died when your argument is supporting mandatory life insurance.

Lack of health insurance doesn't cause premature death either. Health insurance provides medical cover which prolongs life that would otherwise end, not the other way about.

Quit your nonsense editing

Nothing you said was edited. Your words, as ever, remain your own. If you're going to now contest that you meant something different, again, you should have said something different, again.

and take what I say in context and you might begin to digest and comprehend more than a sentence at a time.

Oh dear. The "paint your opposition as dumb" card yet again. You'll wear it out if you're not careful.

Arguing for mandatory health insurance to prevent society having the burden of orphaned children fundamentally misunderstands what health insurance is - it's life insurance that does that. Trying to draw a parallel between that and car insurance - which is public liability insurance for your conveyance - is jaw-dropping. Public liability insurance is to cover what injury you may cause to others through your activities, largely in terms of work or, in this case, driving. You cannot cause injury to others by having cancer or a broken knee - infectious diseases perhaps, but you do have the CDC over there and it's not quite your responsibility if an organism attacking you that you cannot control injures another person, so the notion of a direct comparison to public liability insurance is laughable.

And then to claim that "Obama is not making anything public mandatory" when the exact point of the plan is to make health insurance a mandatory purchase - public if private options are not chosen? Wow. Just... wow. Have you read the bill at all?

 

[arora]

Please stop Dapper. We are a constitutional republic, as much as you'd like us to be a people's republic it doesn't make it so.

I'm looking forward to thise intire farce of a bill either being shot down in the courts or repealed through elections 👍

 

[shmogt]

I'm in Canada And we have free health care. I never go to the doctor so I would prefer just pay every time and get every single thing you buy much cheaper like it is in the states. However that screws a lot of people who get sick or hurt when it's not there fault and than they don't have the money to pay and get healed just to be poor for the rest of there life which isn't fair. Biggest thing I don't get is the dentist. Why isn't that covered under Canada's health policy? Is is not connected to the body and can cause serious health issues if something goes wrong? Cost like $300 for a check up every six months or so. It's actually cheaper for me to not go and let something go wrong because than they will fix it at the hospital for free.

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

I'm in Canada And we have free health care. I never go to the doctor so I would prefer just pay every time and get every single thing you buy much cheaper like it is in the states. However that screws a lot of people who get sick or hurt when it's not there fault and than they don't have the money to pay and get healed just to be poor for the rest of there life which isn't fair. Biggest thing I don't get is the dentist. Why isn't that covered under Canada's health policy? Is is not connected to the body and can cause serious health issues if something goes wrong? Cost like $300 for a check up every six months or so. It's actually cheaper for me to not go and let something go wrong because than they will fix it at the hospital for free.

The point of government-subidized healthcare is so that when you DO have to go to the doctor for something unexpected, you don't go bankrupt.

💡

That's also the point of health insurance.

I think you need to go do some basic research about how health care works in any system.

 

[shmogt]

The point of government-subidized healthcare is so that when you DO have to go to the doctor for something unexpected, you don't go bankrupt.

💡

That's also the point of health insurance.

I think you need to go do some basic research about how health care works in any system.

Ya that's what I said. I could care less if it's free or not personally since I don't use it so I would prefer 4% tax on stuff like it is in the US rather than 13% here, but I do get that one day I may get hurt by accident and it will come in handy rather than getting fixed and being poor. Answer my question about the dentist.

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

\Answer my question about the dentist.

Well, you know as Canadians we are in the British Commonwealth, so maybe there was a low expectation of dental hygiene when they were drafting the national health care legislation

 

[shmogt]

Well, you know as Canadians we are in the British Commonwealth, so maybe there was a low expectation of dental hygiene when they were drafting the national health care legislation

Haaha ok so basically it doesn't make sense to you either

 

[Danoff]

Mandating the purchase of health insurance is, of course, a violation of the constitution (and, by extension, the fundamental principles of the US government). Hopefully the supreme court does the right thing and lights it on fire.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Mandating the purchase of health insurance is, of course, a violation of the constitution (and, by extension, the fundamental principles of the US government). Hopefully the supreme court does the right thing and lights it on fire.

I agree and that is basically what Ron Paul was saying in the first CNN GOP debate, which many on the left boo'd him for, and many on the right ran too far with.

 

[shmogt]

I agree and that is basically what Ron Paul was saying in the first CNN GOP debate, which many on the left boo'd him for, and many on the right ran too far with.

What do all of you think of Ron Paul. I don't live in the US so I have no vote, but he seems to easily have the best plan and ideas always. For some reason the people can't see that tho

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What do all of you think of Ron Paul. I don't live in the US so I have no vote, but he seems to easily have the best plan and ideas always. For some reason the people can't see that tho

Uh...I like Ron Paul but I have to be honest some of his ideas aren't all the clear in some of his debates.

 

[shmogt]

Uh...I like Ron Paul but I have to be honest some of his ideas aren't all the clear in some of his debates.

I haven't seen all them so I can't confirm, but stuff about the military. He was saying like how can you not cut even one penny from the military budget when the US has the biggest military ever and so much defense etc. I no he has always stuck to the same ideas and plans for years now and doesn't seem to get much time talking as there's nothing really left to debate with him anymore.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I haven't seen all them so I can't confirm, but stuff about the military. He was saying like how can you not cut even one penny from the military budget when the US has the biggest military ever and so much defense etc. I no he has always stuck to the same ideas and plans for years now and doesn't seem to get much time talking as there's nothing really left to debate with him anymore.

Yeah that was a good comment, but the other Repubs especially the guy that would cause America to fall Rick Santorum, bashed him for it. They have an invested interest in keeping America with a supersized military even if we have the most weapons and destructive capabilities to last us awhile already. The whole Imperialistic train of thought from the majority of the right is a big issue with me.

 

[Joey D]

If you could, somehow manage to create a universal healthcare system that wasn't in the hands of the state nor required to use by the state... you might just get away with it... Otherwise any legislation will create either a cartel (bad for consumers, great for businesses) or a monopoly (bad all round).

I believe we are in a damned if we and damned if we don't situation, we can either have the legislation and end up with the "cartel", we can keep things the way they currently are and face skyrocketing costs or we can do away with legislation and basically have even more of cluster then we do now with more people out of insurance.

I believe the entire healthcare system be scraped and we should start again. I know that's not going to happen though, nor is it really feasible.

What do all of you think of Ron Paul. I don't live in the US so I have no vote, but he seems to easily have the best plan and ideas always. For some reason the people can't see that tho

I don't care for Ron Paul, I think his ideas are brought about by good principals but I believe his execution of them would have a negative effect on the country. However, at this time I don't think any of the current candidates or the current president deserve to be elected.

 

[Danisfast]

Sure you read it? Who is covering them? It forces individuals to buy insurance. It only grants coverage to those who can prove they cannot afford it. Not all those in the US without it cannot afford it. Some choose to not have it. Via Obama's plan, or any plan you would prefer, you force those people to pay into a system they don't wish to.


I am questioning the thoroughness of the study. Very often studies come out and say the same thing about how many people in the US suffer from conditions, die from them, and so on, and blame the healthcare system. The problem is that is not complete. We are a society that very often suffers from consumption. To ignore that fact and then blame the healthcare system when people die from diabetes related disease, heart disease, or lung disease while eating fried ice cream and enjoying their 50th cigarette that day is irresponsible at best or dishonest at worst.


So, then you should understand why people in the US don't want to trust these same guys to have full control. They waste more money with only a fraction of the responsibility than the UK. Why would you want those people in full control?



Well, we don't practice price controls, so R&D is more possible. Paying for an aspirin today helps pay for an HIV medicine tomorrow. You know, the way business works. If you limit companies to only charging cost you leave no room for growth. Personally, I enjoy working with a research hospital as I get the option to try new things that cost-controlled regions don't have access to. My current pulmonary conduit was experimental at the time it was put in. It was expected to last 7-10 years based on previous methods. I made it 17 before I needed something else done. I am now at 18 years with that same part. My personal health has deteriorated to the point that I need a transplant now, something we knew would be necessary since birth. But, due to all the wonderful medicines that have been developed in the last 20 years I am still living a full life with a heart that needs to be replaced. Why shouldn't I be willing to pay these people a profit? Not only is my current quality of life due to the profits my parents paid when I was a child and the profits I have been paying have gone toward working on artificial heart technology, that by the time my transplant wears out may be a long-term solution. Or, who knows, they may be able to make my own stem cells grow my own heart. That is where the money is going. Healthcare can and should cost more than just the expense of the care, especially if you want better care tomorrow.

That's fair enough. I can understand why you would want to question the sources. I picked it for the numbers, not because of how they were presented. Perhaps I should have elaborated at the time.

Although I take your point about bungling governments, Barrack Obama isn't George W. Bush. At least, he wasn't in 2008 when Guantanamo Bay was on the chopping block and the World looked to him with "the audacity of hope"...

Look, if most other major economies are doing applying the state-run method effectively, then it's just a matter of learning what they do and applying the principles (which I think is a key difference between the two models. One deals indirectly, by trying to stimulate the private sector and has been covering the gaps left by it, and the other deals directly with the issue at hand).

As for the R&D debate, I wonder exactly what people think goes on over here. We do have it, you know. Last time I checked, the budget for NHS R&D was £1,000,000,000, or there abouts. Not massive: and in fact the NHS has been criticised in the past for not allocating enough towards it. However, in recent years, the UKCRC has been created to try and concentrate the combined efforts of the NHS, private and charity sectors to drag the UK back up to the top of the innovations rankings. I've no idea how it's going as of yet, though...

But the question I want to know (the answer to) is, why can't you still allow the private sector to supply the majority of the innovation-side of things, and have the state provide the essential front-line care? What is so wrong with that model? Surely, when it comes the health, that's a much better balance...? Keep the innovation and profit-drive, whilst removing the complex, moral ambiguities...

 

[Danoff]

Look, if most other major economies are doing applying the state-run method effectively, then it's just a matter of learning what they do and applying the principles (which I think is a key difference between the two models. One deals indirectly, by trying to stimulate the private sector and has been covering the gaps left by it, and the other deals directly with the issue at hand).

Two things. One, they're often doing it badly - with consequences we don't want here. Two, it would require that our government violate the boundaries we set for it when we enacted it. Socialized healthcare is unconstitutional.

But the question I want to know (the answer to) is, why can't you still allow the private sector to supply the majority of the innovation-side of things, and have the state provide the essential front-line care? What is so wrong with that model? Surely, when it comes the health, that's a much better balance...? Keep the innovation and profit-drive, whilst removing the complex, moral ambiguities...

Who is the customer? The government. So you want to have private contractors supplying research on government contracts. This is the model we have for military research, and it can limp along, but it's nothing compared to the progress we have in a purely private sector.

The situation we have in America right now is far from ideal and needs a lot of work. But the solution is not socialization.

 

[Danisfast]

Two things. One, they're often doing it badly - with consequences we don't want here. Two, it would require that our government violate the boundaries we set for it when we enacted it. Socialized healthcare is unconstitutional.



Who is the customer? The government. So you want to have private contractors supplying research on government contracts. This is the model we have for military research, and it can limp along, but it's nothing compared to the progress we have in a purely private sector.

The situation we have in America right now is far from ideal and needs a lot of work. But the solution is not socialization.

Just about every other industrialised nation would disagree with your vague rejection there. To elaborate any further would be just going around in circles. A socialised health system can be a perfectly viable (or even superior) option. Fact.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6017920#post6017920

 

[Danoff]

Just about every other industrialised nation would disagree with your vague rejection there. To elaborate any further would be just going around in circles. A socialised health system can be a perfectly viable (or even superior) option. Fact.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6017920#post6017920

Lots of people strongly dislike your examples of socialized health care "working". You shouldn't ignore them.

 

[Joel]

Lots of people strongly dislike your examples of socialized health care "working". You shouldn't ignore them.

Again, I'm a Canadian, and we're always compared to the US health care system. There's a reason why the premier of Newfoundland, Danny Williams went to the US for heart surgery. There's a reason why it takes hours to get through an ER in Canada, but when my dad got in a car accident in the US on a business trip he was admitted into a hospital and discharged in under two hours (he didn't pay anything either, because (GASP!) he was smart enough to buy insurance!).


The US system isn't perfect, but competition breeds the best in any industry, health care is no exception. When a socialized health care system can take free money from the public, they don't need to be good, they can get by with mediocrity.

 

[arora]

There is nothing vague about our constitution.

"the care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? laws provide against injury from others but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Joey D]

The US system isn't perfect, but competition breeds the best in any industry, health care is no exception. When a socialized health care system can take free money from the public, they don't need to be good, they can get by with mediocrity.

Competition doesn't always breed the best in a given industry, especially healthcare. Doctors can get away with charging patients huge amounts of money for their care and once people perceived higher price = better healthcare doctors figured they could charge whatever they want.

I believe going more towards a free market on a healthcare would end up making thing worse in America since the entire medical industry is based on greed and milking patients when they are at their most vulnerable.

*waits for someone to tell me I don't understand the economy

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

but competition breeds the best in any industry, health care is no exception. When a socialized health care system can take free money from the public, they don't need to be good, they can get by with mediocrity.

You might want to look at reforming malpractice insurance before your vision of competition-based health care is the reality. You would think a free market system is the most efficient, but don't tell that to the doctors who have to run a battery of tests at a patient's insistence, when statistically it is often unnecessary to run more than one when getting back results.

There is a huge disconnect between the monetary value of a health test or procedure and the patient's desire to explore all possible options, even when unnecessary. Doctors are basically forced to create inefficiencies in the health system because of the financially devastating results of being found guilty of medical malpractice.

People do not act rationally in regards to their health care. It is not a traditional market and you are oversimplifying the reality of health care waste in the U.S. right now.