Healthcare & rationing

[IntLibber]

I am not even asking for socialised healthcare. All I want is health insurance for a reasonable price. Right now it looks like I either wont get any at all (most likely from what I have seen), or if, then at a price that makes the whole point of insurance mute.
That is my problem.

[\quote]

You dont get medicaid because you are likely an able bodied straight white male, ergo you are a member of the oppressor class according to socialist doctrine.

Besides, noone said that a public healthcare in the US would become mandatory for everyone. In fact Obama said multiple times that you "CAN KEEP YOUR PRIVATE INSURANCE IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT".

You dont seem to be thinking too deeply about the issue then. When government enters a market and competes against private industry, and gets to call the shots how the market works, what typically happens? Private industry leaves the market due to regulatory pressures. This is why there are no private providers of flood insurance today, and why fire departments, which were once all private organizations associated with insurance companies, are all now public organizations.

What Obama is doing is merely another step in the road to pushing all private insurance out of the market and putting everyone on government health care. His goal isnt about health care, its about control, controlling votes, controlling what you are allowed to think.

[vankirkc]

People who dont have health care insurance typically are individuals who dont NEED health care insurance.

Reference please.

[vankirkc]

Universal health care is not about "saving lives" its about controlling people. Attacking people who oppose it with demonization tactics is typicaly socialist Alinsky methods and dont belong here.

I would argue that you're engaged in demonizing a public option by calling it socialist, and claiming that its intent is to control people.

What Obama is doing is merely another step in the road to pushing all private insurance out of the market and putting everyone on government health care. His goal isnt about health care, its about control, controlling votes, controlling what you are allowed to think.

Paranoid much? The debate is about how to contain the cost of healthcare and correct some glaring injustices in the current system. I seriously doubt there are provisions in any of the bills before congress that limit your freedom to speak, or think what you like. Feel free to link your references if you know this to be untrue.

[MSimon]

I am not even asking for socialised healthcare. All I want is health insurance for a reasonable price.

If you are asking to pay less than the cost of the service who will be making up the difference?

[vankirkc]

I am not even asking for socialised healthcare. All I want is health insurance for a reasonable price.

If you are asking to pay less than the cost of the service who will be making up the difference?

Why does the service cost more in the U.S. than it does elsewhere? I think the answer is that demand is inelastic, and other countries have recognized this fact and imposed controls on pricing.

[MSimon]

Universal health care is not about "saving lives" its about controlling people. Attacking people who oppose it with demonization tactics is typicaly socialist Alinsky methods and dont belong here.

I would argue that you're engaged in demonizing the public option by calling it socialist, and claiming that its intent is to control people.

Where exactly is this control you speak of?

Why would they write it in the bill and give the enemies of government control ammunition?

It will be handled by regulation.

BTW the control will be in deciding what level of care you will get. Which will be decided by the so called "Health Boards" more commonly referred to as "Death Boards". It will be decided based on what level of spending the government wishes to incur. The current system is that you (through your employer) CONTRACT for the level of care you (your employer) desire.

The government will be making decisions based on THEIR profit and loss calculations. i.e. young people will get treatment old people will be figuratively set out on ice floes. Why spend money on keeping alive a non-producer? Or an enemy of the state?

=====

A question I want to ask my Euro/Socialist friends: Why isn't there a Polywell Project in Europe? The patents on the basic device have run out. What is stopping you guys?

Socialism at its base is about efficiency. Capitalism is about progress. That is where the incentives generally lie. Real research is generally very wasteful. Done right you are throwing away 1/2 your money. In fact done right the near term losses can run to 100% since it may take many decades from an idea to a useful economic product.

====

Consider. In America doctors are thinking all the time about new products and services because they can profit from their work. Is their any such incentive in a socialist system? A doctor friend of my family is making millions a year in royalties from a shoulder joint replacement and the associated surgery that goes from the current 60% mobility to 95% mobility. Would such an improvement be financed by a socialist system?

Suppose it costs significantly more than the 60% joint. Would efficiency dictate that such a service not be offered? And especially not to the old who are non-producers.

====

And what part of the medical care system in America is in trouble? Medicare which services the old (which is about 1/3rd the system). Which is why there is a big push to get the rest of the people in the country into the system. To stave off disaster a few more years by collecting more from the healthy.

[Skipjack]

You dont get medicaid because you are likely an able bodied straight white male, ergo you are a member of the oppressor class according to socialist doctrine.

That is the problem, I am not ABLE. I had a heart attack. That makes me "uninsurable".

When government enters a market and competes against private industry, and gets to call the shots how the market works, what typically happens? Private industry leaves the market due to regulatory pressures.

Well, we must be doing something very differently from you guys then. Austria only recently allowed certain professions (lawyers and doctors) to get private health and social insurance (if they want that rather than the public insurance). My mother works at an insurance company and they are very happy to provide this service. I dont think they would, if they did not make any profit from it. In fact they are able to signifficantly undercut the offer by the government and so many people are happy to take it. Heck, I would have taken it. However, the private companies have strict requirements. So the standard of healthcare is guaranteed to everyone.

I am not demonizing anyone, I am just upset. I want to live my life as I had planned it. Dreams that I have worked myself literally to death for. I could have spent my life slacking allong like so many instead, had I not had these plans. The heart attack was unfair and I did nothing to provoque it. All I wish for is that it wont completely destroy my life. Being without health insurance is a very dangerous game. Had I been without health insurance at the age of 33, I would be seriously frick and probably bankrupt by now. My company would be closed, its assets sold off and my employees would have lost their jobs. I dont think that this would have benefited anyone. But maybe you can see some benefit in this that I dont see?

The young (18-35), for instance, at most need catastrophic insurance because 90%+ of the time, whatever care they need is due to some catastropic event: car accident, extreme sports issue, unusual terminal illness, violent crime. They tend to be the most physically fit and well nourished.

I do agree with this to a certain extent. I needed very little of this until the age of 33. Only thing I ever had before was a nasal polyp removed. But one person out of a few hundred of them has bad luck. Gets a heart attack, some serious illness, cancer, whatsoever and then needs it. Thats the principle of insurance. You have many that will never have anything happen to them pay into a pot to have the security that if something would happen to them, they would be covered. If you insure only those that wont have any problems anyway and then kick them out once they do, it is not an insurance, but a scam.

Funny sidenote, I just read the insurance broshure that was posted here earlier. I found it quite funny that bogus like chiropractors were actually covered by it. That money should rather be saved for real doctors that you know, actually cure real illnesses.

[MSimon]

I am not even asking for socialised healthcare. All I want is health insurance for a reasonable price.

If you are asking to pay less than the cost of the service who will be making up the difference?

Why does the service cost more in the U.S. than it does elsewhere? I think the answer is that demand is inelastic, and other countries have recognized this fact and imposed controls on pricing.

The fundamental reason is we care more about old people. Not just their life but also their quality of life. Thus a hip replacement for an 80 year old. Currently this is not sustainable unless we can bring costs down.

There are two main competing ways of doing this:

1. By government fiat.
2. Adjusting the incentive system.

I prefer #2.

[Skipjack]

The government will be making decisions based on THEIR profit and loss calculations. i.e. young people will get treatment old people will be figuratively set out on ice floes. Why spend money on keeping alive a non-producer? Or an enemy of the state?

Yeah, that is really funny, because it is actually the private insurers that deny health insurance to the elderly.
Old people here get the same treatment young people do. I can only speak for Austria here. Maybe it is different in other countries. But if it works here, why wouldnt it in the US?

[MSimon]

I found it quite funny that bogus like chiropractors were actually covered by it.

I agree that chiropractic theory is totally bogus. However, their practice (if they are good) is excellent in providing pain relief where nothing else works. I have availed myself of their services more than once to fix things (muscle spasms of long duration is one) that would have been prohibitive to fix by the regular system. I paid for the treatment out of pocket. The cost was under $1,000 for all the treatments. It may have been under $500. It has been a while.

BTW Skipjack, why isn't your health insurance portable? Maybe you are agitating in the wrong place for your real needs.

[MSimon]

Old people here get the same treatment young people do. I can only speak for Austria here. Maybe it is different in other countries. But if it works here, why wouldnt it in the US?

Well of course. But generally young people don't need much.

And then I hark back to the kin selection problem. The less closely people are related the less socialism will be favored. In America we may have reached our limit.

[MSimon]

The government will be making decisions based on THEIR profit and loss calculations. i.e. young people will get treatment old people will be figuratively set out on ice floes. Why spend money on keeping alive a non-producer? Or an enemy of the state?

Yeah, that is really funny, because it is actually the private insurers that deny health insurance to the elderly.

Old people here get the same treatment young people do. I can only speak for Austria here. Maybe it is different in other countries. But if it works here, why wouldnt it in the US?

Sovereign immunity vs contract. Private insurance is a deal based on a contract between a seller and a buyer. Socialist insurance is whatever the government will give you.

If the government decides hip replacement is not cost effective for 80 year olds you have no recourse.

[MSimon]

I would argue that you're engaged in demonizing a public option by calling it socialist, and claiming that its intent is to control people.

If you are forced to join it is a socialist system. The government is forcing me to join Medicare despite my relative good health. I don't need it. And I'm willing to take my chances with what ever comes up. I have no choice in the matter. That is socialism.

We have socialized the payment for our military. Inefficient but it solves the free rider problem. And it is one of the Constitutional mandates. Health care, last I looked, is not a Constitutional mandate.

[vankirkc]

Socialism means worse outcomes for everyone.

You seem to want to strangle the world's main source of medical innovation. Do you realize how many people that would kill? We also do less rationing than Europe, when you consider marginal cases.

By 'marginal cases' I think you mean extremely uncommon and esoteric illnesses where research is a deciding factor in care. On that basis I think you're wrong, since by their nature as uncommon illnesses, they will constitute a much smaller number than uninsured 'tweeners' (people who are too wealthy to be covered as poor people, but not wealthy enough to be able to afford insurance) with conventional chronic illnesses who are unable to receive care until their conditions become life threatening.

Next, why would a public option strangle medical innovation? A better mousetrap is a better mousetrap no matter who buys it.

I'd be open to good arguments, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments for socialism yet.

OTOH we've made many for capitalism, if any more were needed in addition to the weight of the last century of history. We've pointed out about a million facts that say socializing American health care is bad not just for America, but for the world. The counter-argument seems to be "You're mean! You want people to die because they can't pay!"

Not at all. My personal interest in the public option is a) it's cheaper overall, and b) evidence suggests countries that have it live longer on average. Also, I live country with such a system, and know from personal experience that many of the populist arguments against it are simply untrue (e.g. long waits for procedures and shutting down of private care).

Shrug. We heard those arguments about "heartless capitalism" from Communists and their apologists for 50 years (I remember Dan Rather gravely intoning that Soviet citizens had "economic liberty" (freedom from want) while we had mere "political liberty"). Where are they today? Converted to capitalism or living in desperate poverty. Socialism sounds nice ("to each according to his need") but doesn't work in the real world. You can put the poor on welfare without damaging the economy too much, but putting everyone on welfare means everyone is poor.

Look, if the current system is so good why does it cost so much more and at the same time exclude so many people? High cost and limited coverage for roughly equivalent outcome doesn't sound very superior to me.

Finally, several times you and others have said that 'for practical purposes anyone who needs care gets it.' This is only true if a) they are able to finance said care or b) the care in question is for an immediately life threatening condition. According to these people:

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp? ... =61&id=358

75% of costs are associated with chronic illness rather than emergency care, so would not be treated unless the person with the condition has means to pay or until it becomes a life threatening issue.

[MSimon]

Next, why would a public option strangle medical innovation? A better mousetrap is a better mousetrap no matter who buys it.

Are they buying at a price so the developer can make a good profit or are they paying just enough to cover the marginal cost?

Incentives make a difference.