Democrats start to jump ship...

[Schneibster]

Noticed no one answered my question on this thread either.

I appear to be succeeding: Schneibsters ask inconvenient questions.

Your Freudian slips are showing.

[JLawson]

Noticed no one answered my question on this thread either.

Were you under the delusion that you were somehow owed an answer? Or even the simple courtesy that you refuse to show others in your quest to get yourself kicked around?

[palladin9479]

Nope wrong half of the world. I happen to think that Europe is totally frick.

But hey try again, you got two more attempts. Maybe by then the vitriol would of worked it's way out of your arteries and you might actually talk rather then slinging words like a drunk liberal at the after party of a feminist convention.

Canada then, the system that's so great that people made movies about it:
http://www.steynonline.com/4221/the-barbarian-invasions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
I keep hearing stories about that great Canadian health system:
http://www.bdtonline.com/columns/x25203 ... rs-at-work
This stuff is easy to find and points to long term problems:
http://mises.org/daily/3586
Somehow they never seem to end well. Something about shortages, gurneys in the halls, dirty and old hospitals, long waits for things like CT scans and specialists. Over and over, for quite frankly as long as I can remember. Along with Progressives singing the praises of the system, up until they had to use it. And as for as vitriol goes YOU accused ME of lying when all I did was say what I thought. And then you continued when I provided stories to back up what I said. The fact is that by and large single payer doesn't have great record and if you can't admit that, well you only kidding yourself.

Nope still wrong. Wrong side of the Ocean.

Stop looking at westernized liberal societies, most of what they produce is garbage because everything has a hidden political agenda behind it.

As to the above comment, what I stated is exactly how demand works. Medical service is not a free market, you don't have the option to chose not to live. Providers don't advertise a life saving procedure at competitive rates with other providers, instead they just give you the bill afterwards. Informed decision is impossible for anyone not holding a medical degree and even then it might not be possible due to the ultra specialization that happens. The US has one of the worst medical systems in the world even though it's the wealthiest country. So much money goes to profit that actual value is non-existent.

You can't bullsh!t me with fear stories. I live here, I experience that "evil" government controlled healthcare. Hell I'm not even covered, the government here pays 0% of my bill, I have to pay full price in cash. And it's STILL 50~80% cheaper then the USA for the same procedure / medication. Doctors and other medical personal are still considered high paying desirable jobs and they actually live a better QoL then their counterparts in the USA.

Here's a hint, malpractice insurance eats a very large chunk of a doctors paycheck, after that it's the loans for the medical school. For hospitals it's all the extra requirements and services they are forced to provide to be certified as a hospital. The problem with the US medical system is over regulation done at the behest of interested political entities. The Republicans are just as guilty of private political influence as the Democrats are. Just look at the profits of the Insurance Companies, the ones that take $1000 for every $500 in services they pay for. Then look at big pharma that charges US residents 200~1000% the rate for the same medication it sells to other countries.

[palladin9479]

Now as to why free market healthcare can't work. For anything to work in a free market supply and demand need to have a natural method to equalize. In commodities this is simple, you vote with your dollar. If something is priced to high you simply chose to not buy it or pay for an alternative. In healthcare there is no alternative to being live. You can't chose to be "discount" alive, or "generic" alive. You have a health problem, you need it take care of. If I'm the provider of that care I can chose to charge whatever I want for that care. Your only choice is to pay me or die. In economic terms this can be expressed as setting demand to infinity. No amount of supply can balance with an infinite demand.

You are confusing demand with something else. Demand is never infinite. It depends on both willingness and ability to pay the price asked. If you charge $10m for a treatment, you're not going to have many patients, regardless of how many (and how much) people want it.

In emergencies there may be just one provider that can help you fast enough. But since you might be unable to agree to anything anyway, there is always a need to handle these cases specially. For example, by negotiating the price of emergency care ahead of time. In most other cases there are multiple providers of the same treatment, thus competition brings the price down.

There are, however, a number of other problems which free market health care faces, possibly to a greater degree than more regulated systems. That includes conflicts of interest, a strong information imbalance, collusion, fraud, and crowding out of nonmarket values.

That's not how free market works. That natural price balance only works for commodities and optional services, things that the consumer has the choice to walk away from and vote with their wallet. Health isn't something you can walk away from. Instead what you get is a form of highway robbery. Your sick, I have the combination of care and medication that will remedy your sickness. We enter into price negations and you ask how much is the cost. My answer is simple, how much do you got? I can set my price to whatever you have with no ceiling as you will pay it. I can consume all of your disposable income with impunity because healthcare has a higher priority then consumer products. Healthcare isn't something you chose, you don't CHOSE to be sick or healthy (actually you can but that's a much bigger argument about lifestyles).

[JLawson]

That's not how free market works. That natural price balance only works for commodities and optional services, things that the consumer has the choice to walk away from and vote with their wallet. Health isn't something you can walk away from. Instead what you get is a form of highway robbery. Your sick, I have the combination of care and medication that will remedy your sickness. We enter into price negations and you ask how much is the cost. My answer is simple, how much do you got? I can set my price to whatever you have with no ceiling as you will pay it. I can consume all of your disposable income with impunity because healthcare has a higher priority then consumer products. Healthcare isn't something you chose, you don't CHOSE to be sick or healthy (actually you can but that's a much bigger argument about lifestyles).

It's called 'planning for the future', or 'being responsible for your life'.

You should figure that at SOME point you're going to need some sort of health care - and a rational health insurance system would both allow you to buy what you think you need, and help you determine what you think you need - in the face of what's available in the health care system where you live. (And please note that INSURANCE isn't the same thing as CARE - confusing the two has caused no end of problems.)

There's all sorts of calculators on the internet that will let you figure out what amount of house or car you can buy, how much you should save for retirement at various percentage rates at various ages - and plenty of places that will both teach you about the various kinds of insurance and make at least some recommendations as to what you should have at various points in your life.

(And what you shouldn't. Maternity coverage, if you're male, should be a non-starter when you're looking at policies. MANDATED maternity coverage if you're male should cause you to question the sanity of the issuer. The point is to get what you think you need and want - not what someone else decides you should have.)

But you've got to decide for yourself what you want to pay for. Frankly, a policy that provides maternity coverage and contraception is pretty much useless to me - a middle-aged male. When I was younger, what would have sufficed was a plan with dental insurance and catastrophic coverage. As I've gotten older, with various surgeries, I'm paying more. (Shrug.) That's the way I figured it would be - that nobody was going to GIVE me health care.

I can set my price to whatever you have with no ceiling as you will pay it.

Uh huh. That's why you see millions upon millions being charged thousands of dollars for sniffle medications when they take their kids to the doctor with a cold. That's why you see the AMA trying desperately to scrape all medical information off the web, so they can maintain a monopoly on care.

You're arguing something that simply isn't in evidence, I'm afraid... at least, not yet. Or are you arguing that YOU would do such if you were a doctor? (In which case, I feel sorry as hell for any patients you might get.) You might be able to get away with it for a while (depending on how much you gouge) but word does get around, and unless you're the only doctor for 100 miles around, you're going to find the competition will undercut your overcharging ass in a heartbeat.

[Teahive]

That's not how free market works. That natural price balance only works for commodities and optional services, things that the consumer has the choice to walk away from and vote with their wallet. Health isn't something you can walk away from. Instead what you get is a form of highway robbery. Your sick, I have the combination of care and medication that will remedy your sickness. We enter into price negations and you ask how much is the cost. My answer is simple, how much do you got? I can set my price to whatever you have with no ceiling as you will pay it. I can consume all of your disposable income with impunity because healthcare has a higher priority then consumer products. Healthcare isn't something you chose, you don't CHOSE to be sick or healthy (actually you can but that's a much bigger argument about lifestyles).

You don't choose to be hungry. Food isn't something you can walk away from if you're starving, yet there is a functioning market for it. Emergency care is a special case where you can't shop around, but there is a way to still not get screwed over: negotiate a price before you need it, possibly through an intermediate (such as an insurance company).

Most health care is not emergency care.

But you've got to decide for yourself what you want to pay for. Frankly, a policy that provides maternity coverage and contraception is pretty much useless to me - a middle-aged male. When I was younger, what would have sufficed was a plan with dental insurance and catastrophic coverage.

The problem with that approach is, young people do get sick and require expensive treatment, just not as often as older people. And they usually don't have huge savings. Risk spreading makes sense particularly for rare, unpredictable conditions.

[JLawson]

But you've got to decide for yourself what you want to pay for. Frankly, a policy that provides maternity coverage and contraception is pretty much useless to me - a middle-aged male. When I was younger, what would have sufficed was a plan with dental insurance and catastrophic coverage.

The problem with that approach is, young people do get sick and require expensive treatment, just not as often as older people. And they usually don't have huge savings. Risk spreading makes sense particularly for rare, unpredictable conditions.

And there's the 'Just not as often' kicker - which is already figured into the premiums charged to the age group. The risk was already being spread.

[MSimon]

Emergency care is a special case where you can't shop around, but there is a way to still not get screwed over: negotiate a price before you need it, possibly through an intermediate

But emergency care is not where the main problem lies. It is chronic care that is the main eater of resources.

[hanelyp]

Medical care and insurance for same haven't been free market for many years on account of gooberment interference. But it served advocates of "health care reform" to pretend otherwise and blame the problems on the market.

[JLawson]

Medical care and insurance for same haven't been free market for many years on account of gooberment interference. But it served advocates of "health care reform" to pretend otherwise and blame the problems on the market.

Yes, like Obama pretending you couldn't look at health care on-line without Healthcare.Shove/Under-de-bus-wit-youse

The man obviously doesn't know how Google functions. Or, come to think of it, how pretty much anything outside his very limited knowledge base functions... like business, insurance, the environment...

[Teahive]

But you've got to decide for yourself what you want to pay for. Frankly, a policy that provides maternity coverage and contraception is pretty much useless to me - a middle-aged male. When I was younger, what would have sufficed was a plan with dental insurance and catastrophic coverage.

The problem with that approach is, young people do get sick and require expensive treatment, just not as often as older people. And they usually don't have huge savings. Risk spreading makes sense particularly for rare, unpredictable conditions.

And there's the 'Just not as often' kicker - which is already figured into the premiums charged to the age group. The risk was already being spread.

The risk is being spread if you take the appropriate coverage. Which "a plan with dental insurance and catastrophic coverage" is not.

[JLawson]

The risk is being spread if you take the appropriate coverage. Which "a plan with dental insurance and catastrophic coverage" is not.

Yes, they get sick - 'just not as often'. Do you believe it's moral to make people buy things they don't want and possibly can't afford and may very well not need? (I won't talk about whether it's legal - comprehensive auto and house insurance is there in case something happens, and it's required by businesses making the loans. Don't want insurance? Come up with the cash and you don't have to worry about taking out a loan and having comprehensive coverage in case something happens. Minimum auto collision coverage does cover the risk pool as decided by the state. But that's a good for all, and also seems to me like legalized gambling - you're betting you'll need it, they're betting you won't, and if you 'win' with an accident they make you play again and up the buy-in.)

But tell at 20-30 year old they need a policy that'll cover hospitalization and long-term care and disability so they can 'spread the risk', and they'll laugh. Yeah, SOME might. Not a majority, and not even a significant minority. You're going to have a hard time persuading them to buy into the idea. It's very hard to persuade people to buy something they don't think they'll need - and they won't thank you for it later when they see 5-10-15 years of premiums down the tubes with no need of what they 'bought'.

As far as health care costs go - my older brother had no insurance and had a heart attack. He called 911 and was on the OR table about 45 minutes later, and they put in two stents. Two nights in the hospital, then home - and he started paying the hospital $25-50 a month. They wrote his debt off after three months. (Tax writeoff for them, I understand, as charitable work.)

He wasn't quite so lucky with his second heart attack. He didn't finish calling 911.

[palladin9479]

You don't choose to be hungry. Food isn't something you can walk away from if you're starving, yet there is a functioning market for it. Emergency care is a special case where you can't shop around, but there is a way to still not get screwed over: negotiate a price before you need it, possibly through an intermediate (such as an insurance company).

Most health care is not emergency care.

For one insurance companies are nothing but middle men, they take your money and provide less care then what they promised. They have to do that in order to make a profit.

Stop with the "risk spreading" nonsense, this isn't car / fire / disaster insurance. Comprehensive health insurance is the root of the problem, if insurance was split into individual components separated out then you could "spread the risk". It's the insurance companies that are milking you guys, not the Democrats (though they have their hands dirty too, frick socialists). They pay the Republican party quite well to maintain that status quot or didn't you miss the "mandatory insurance" part of the bill? That was a paid-for Republican line put in to secure more customers for the insurance companies at the expense of the US Government.

I'm serious about this, my company provides comprehensive health insurance and I've never used it. I just pay cash up front for services rendered and get a huge discount for doing so. It's more expensive to use your insurance company then it is to pay for yourself, go frick figure.

You guys really haven't figured out the system I've been in for this long? It's a genius implementation, all the common stuff is cheap even at full price. When you dig in it's a pretty bare-bones system, all preventative care and basic hospitalization, injury and treatments. No fluff bullshit like extended maternity care or cosmetic care. No birth-control or abortion or other bullshit.

And guys right now there we have de'facto single payer socialized healthcare for the poor. Poor people just go to the emergency room when they have a problem, they can't be turned away and whatever the care costs is dumped onto the hospital. The hospital must ratchet up it's rates on the paying customers to cover the loss (plus profit) which in turn gets passed to the insurance company who then increase's their rates (plus profit) to the company and the portion charged to you. So each and everyone one of you is paying for "socialized" healthcare by proxy. All sponsored by ye ole Republican Party.

[choff]

Strictly speaking, the Canadian system is not socialized medicine.


Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.



Read more: Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/c ... z2l4pxQis4
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

[JLawson]

And in all honesty, looking at the fouled-up mess that's Obamacare I find it hard to imagine that we could even begin to pull off single-payer...

Even if we weren't $17 trillion+ in debt, and climbing daily in a way that'd make a Saturn 5 green with envy - this administration's not exactly packed with people who are competent managers. I'd almost lay even odds on them being unable to do anything as complex as changing a flat tire.

Provide health care (not 'insurance' which is more of a promise of care than the actual care, but actual care) to 350 million? When they can't even make a blasted web site? That's a laughable idea.

When they hate business except as a source of revenue, medical providers, medical manufacturers, and pretty much everyone except their own coterie of sycophants? Maybe they can use the VA model, which is already cracking under the strain.

Or maybe not. Some things simply can't be scaled up - and I'm thinking we're about at a limit worldwide of what government bureaucracies can actually accomplish.