Health care poll
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:44:32 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Health care poll
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: In the most general terms, what do you think should be done about health care access and cost problems in the United States?
#1
Nothing should be done, the current system works well.
 
#2
There should be health insurance reform, correcting bad practices.
 
#3
Health insurance cooperatives should be created to increase competition.
 
#4
A government subsidized public insurance option should be created.
 
#5
The United States should adopt a single-payer system.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 60

Author Topic: Health care poll  (Read 6145 times)
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,851


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 30, 2009, 10:53:42 PM »

I can't stand how much of a right wing echo chamber this forum is.  There are no liberals here!

I support a national mandate for states to strive towards universal coverage.  Of course now is not the time for that though.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 30, 2009, 11:00:07 PM »

I can't stand how much of a right wing echo chamber this forum is.  There are no liberals here!

I support a national mandate for states to strive towards universal coverage.  Of course now is not the time for that though.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.
Logged
Stampever
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 489
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 30, 2009, 11:06:43 PM »


Since none of the options match my view, I went with Option 1.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 30, 2009, 11:11:24 PM »

Single payer is the best option, and everyone supports it. So why are the Democrats still being DLCists by not supporting it too?

The DLCers need Republican votes, like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,851


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2009, 11:12:28 PM »

I can't stand how much of a right wing echo chamber this forum is.  There are no liberals here!

I support a national mandate for states to strive towards universal coverage.  Of course now is not the time for that though.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.

Source?
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2009, 11:19:19 PM »

Single payer coupled with aggressive reforms of Agrobusiness and a greater emphasis on health lifestyle choices. At the very least I support government provided preventative care and coverage of chronic illnesses.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2009, 11:20:08 PM »

I can't stand how much of a right wing echo chamber this forum is.  There are no liberals here!

I support a national mandate for states to strive towards universal coverage.  Of course now is not the time for that though.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.

Source?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2009, 11:20:33 PM »

Single payer coupled with aggressive reforms of Agrobusiness and a greater emphasis on health lifestyle choices. At the very least I support government provided preventative care and coverage of chronic illnesses.

Your avatar is out of date.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2009, 11:24:00 PM »

Single payer coupled with aggressive reforms of Agrobusiness and a greater emphasis on health lifestyle choices. At the very least I support government provided preventative care and coverage of chronic illnesses.

Your avatar is out of date.

Don't harass the moderates. Please.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2009, 11:25:25 PM »

Single payer coupled with aggressive reforms of Agrobusiness and a greater emphasis on health lifestyle choices. At the very least I support government provided preventative care and coverage of chronic illnesses.

Your avatar is out of date.

Don't harass the moderates. Please.

Support for nationalized healthcare is now a MODERATE position? Really, don't be stupid. How is anything he listed any of the governments business?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2009, 11:39:17 PM »

I see no reason to answer a question that is flawed, since none of these five statements of faith address "cost problems."  I have said plenty of times that the present system is doomed from a cost-perspective (sooner than you might think, in fact), but until it is described to me, in plain math (and not just in vague generalities like the above answers), how any proposed solution will work better "cost-wise" than the present system, I have to assume that you're full of sh!t in terms of a new system solving "cost problems".

You see, that's the reason why I can't take any poster seriously who complains about how "the Republicans" are scaring people about health care.  No facts are provided as to what specifically is false, the argument sounds in hyperbole and ironically, fear-mongering (the same hyperbole which passed the Patriot Act, the Prescription Drug Plan and the Iraq War, btw).  All that needs to be done is to make a simple showing.  What does the legislation say, what are the attacks being made and how are the attacks false?

And towards my big issue, "cost-savings", I ask that those who are actually interested in thinking, to read the proposed legislation and point out to me where the cost-savings are.  If you want a single-payer system, explain to me how the numbers work without severe rationing, which will occur if we can't blow another debt bubble probably regardless of the system implemented (not to mention what will happen to the rest of the world).  I want math.

On the present legislation, I have read one hundred pages of both bills, I see how the system is supposed to work, and the only potential for "cost-saving" I see is if the MAC drastically reduces the "expected medical benefits" required in a "qualified plan", whether governmental or otherwise.  On the other hand, I can spot many, many legislative provisions that will cost health-care costs to shoot the moon, the part about no discrimination in plans to people based on "health status" or exclusions based on "pre-existing condition" being the worst offender in my mind. (that I pointed out yesterday)
 
Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that any new proposal could create as much "access" to health care as there is presently, but that statement presumes "access" to health care is a positive thing.  Any greater "access" to health care would inherently create "cost problems" much greater than the present system.

I end my little spiel here with noting in passing an interesting side-issue - the effect of the US spending less money on health care (or spending it more inefficiently than present, which is quite possible).  Think about what it means to everyone else.  Getting a grip on the numbers concerning this one is hard, but I may do it soon if I feel like it.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2009, 01:27:11 AM »

Public option seems like the only realistic possibility...
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2009, 01:49:48 AM »


True. I've been in PA again for three months.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2009, 05:32:51 AM »

I can't stand how much of a right wing echo chamber this forum is.  There are no liberals here!

I support a national mandate for states to strive towards universal coverage.  Of course now is not the time for that though.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.

Source?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

I saw nothing about the cancer rate being 5 times higher in the rest of the industrialized world.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2009, 05:43:57 AM »


On the other hand, I can spot many, many legislative provisions that will cost health-care costs to shoot the moon, the part about no discrimination in plans to people based on "health status" or exclusions based on "pre-existing condition" being the worst offender in my mind. (that I pointed out yesterday)
 
Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that any new proposal could create as much "access" to health care as there is presently, but that statement presumes "access" to health care is a positive thing.  Any greater "access" to health care would inherently create "cost problems" much greater than the present system.



First of all how will the addition of a public option not create more access to health care?

Secondly what do you think people with pre-existing conditions should do? Should they just remain uninsured and then end up in the ER and cost society about $100,000 anyways?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2009, 06:39:28 AM »
« Edited: July 31, 2009, 06:53:06 AM by Senator Marokai Blue »

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.

Source?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

First of all, the cancer rate certainly isn't five times higher, universally or with specific cancers, so it's disingenuous to say it's five times higher and then present a source without directly citing something backing that up. Aside from that, however, I suspect your more general point was that the cancer rate is still very high in other areas of the world that have single payer of government healthcare plans. But this still has a few caveats. (And by caveats I mean important things you leave out or dismiss that totally discredit this notion.)

"Caveat" #1: Cancer survival rates are totally random, and are, in fact, not always lower than the United States. I was doing some random googling and wiki'ing while I was waiting for my headache to (never) subside, and I came across an article from 2007 that was addressing a study done about the exact same thing you're talking about, cancer survival rates and the like.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.slate.com/id/2174722/pagenum/2

And it makes perfect sense. People come to the United States and our survival rates are higher because we're a wealthy country. The survival rates for certain cancers seem random, and there's nothing here that specifically makes the connection between universal and/or government healthcare itself, and the survival rates of the cancers. The NHS is poorly managed, but aside from that anomaly, there's nothing to suggest that the introduction of a government healthcare plan would do anything to lower the survival rates of cancer.

While I'm on this "Caveat" I'd like to take just a few sentences for one of the points in your source. "Fact" 10 in your article talks about how America is the center of innovation, research, and development. This again has nothing to do with the healthcare system itself. There is, again, nothing to suggest that universal healthcare leads to less innovation, and in fact, this again has more to do with the wealth of the United States than our private healthcare system. We've been the world's only superpower for almost six decades! We're the richest nation in the world, and the center of influence and power (economically and militarily) of the world. It makes sense that we would also be the research and development capital of the world when it comes to medical innovations. This has nothing to do with the healthcare itself.

"Caveat" #2: The American healthcare system has a host of other problems that other healthcare systems in the world would have less of a problem in due to our nature of only covering a certain portion of the population and leaving out another.  According to two different lists on Wikipedia the US is beaten by several countries with government healthcare systems when it comes to life expectancy. Canada (80.7), Japan (82.6), Sweden (80.9), France (80.7), Britain (79.4), etc. all beat us (78.2) when it comes to life expectancy overall!

Not to mention, we're beat out in infant mortality rates, nurses, doctors, and hospital beds per 1000 people by several countries, the simplest graph I could find on short notice being this one.

Even further, the US has 47 million uninsured people living (legally) here. I know you whined about this in a linkage spam fest in another thread, trying to introduce a number of stipulations attached to that number, but nothing you presented did such. Whether or not they're immigrants, or from certain income groups, it does nothing to knitpick away from the fact that we still have something like 16% of the population without health insurance. (Not counting those who have problems despite the fact that they're currently insured anyway.) Because of this, it leads to about 20,000 deaths a year due to being uninsured. Covering everyone solves or substantially cuts down on that problem.

Your characterization of the United States as having a charming healthcare system where no one has any problems and lives through any cancer isn't really that rosy. It leads out a number of important details. Summarized: Cancer rates have little to do with the healthcare system itself, and more to do with the relative wealth of the country in question. R&D happens here because we're the wealthiest and most influential country in the world, this doesn't change just by swapping some funding mechanisms. And the United States has a ton of other healthcare problems that, together, more than overcompensate our higher-than-average cancer survival rates. (Assuming private insurance has a hand in that, which it doesn't.)

PS: Also, preventable deaths are a major problem for the United States because of a lack of basic preventable care that other nations with government plans have. We could prevent thousands of deaths each year just have having some sort of mandated preventative care.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, keep in mind that the healthcare system of Britain is not entirely public and, unlike Canada, does not ban or restrict private care for the most part. A chunk of Britain's healthcare system is private, people simply choose not to use it.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2009, 07:44:56 AM »

lol, DWTL playing the "I'm an average American" card again.

Yes, because as we know under Obama success is to be punished.
I never got conservatives beliefs that the left wing believes in punishing success. That is borderline idiotic, the reason why the left believes in taxing the rich is because they can afford a bigger burden of tax dollars and wouldn't be lowered at all from their position in the world. You couldn't afford social programs by having a flat tax system because the social programs would have next to no affect on the working class and poor if their taxes were raised.

Besides I think everyone knows that being rich is not something that is purely based on skill, intelligence and hard work. It isn't even close. Just like how being poor is not something purley based on idiocy, laziness and immorality. I don't get how some people look at money and determine someone's value to society based on that.
The rich can afford a heavier burden so they should be taxed more?  Yes, but not a higher percentage, that is punishing the rich.  You really can't get around it.  That's why a flat percentage tax with a negative tax is the truly the fairest system.  But I digress, we all know this

Being rich and being poor may not be completely based on skills, but it heavily is.  One does not live an entire life in poverty because there was no way out.  There are countless stories (starting with liberals latest hero Sonia Sotomizer) of people who make their way from humble beginnings, hell count President Obama in that bunch.  If you are dirt poor for an extended period of time, it is because you are lazy or moronic.  There is no reason that you cannot obtain at least middle class status for yourself with a little bit of hard work and effort.  Super rich?  No.  Enough to get buy and get your own health care?  Of course, hell, I know people that work as baggers in Shop Rite and have freakin health insurance, its really not that hard to get.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2009, 07:47:10 PM »

lol, DWTL playing the "I'm an average American" card again.

Yes, because as we know under Obama success is to be punished.
I never got conservatives beliefs that the left wing believes in punishing success. That is borderline idiotic, the reason why the left believes in taxing the rich is because they can afford a bigger burden of tax dollars and wouldn't be lowered at all from their position in the world. You couldn't afford social programs by having a flat tax system because the social programs would have next to no affect on the working class and poor if their taxes were raised.

Besides I think everyone knows that being rich is not something that is purely based on skill, intelligence and hard work. It isn't even close. Just like how being poor is not something purley based on idiocy, laziness and immorality. I don't get how some people look at money and determine someone's value to society based on that.
The rich can afford a heavier burden so they should be taxed more?  Yes, but not a higher percentage, that is punishing the rich.  You really can't get around it.  That's why a flat percentage tax with a negative tax is the truly the fairest system.  But I digress, we all know this

Being rich and being poor may not be completely based on skills, but it heavily is.  One does not live an entire life in poverty because there was no way out.  There are countless stories (starting with liberals latest hero Sonia Sotomizer) of people who make their way from humble beginnings, hell count President Obama in that bunch.  If you are dirt poor for an extended period of time, it is because you are lazy or moronic.  There is no reason that you cannot obtain at least middle class status for yourself with a little bit of hard work and effort.  Super rich?  No.  Enough to get buy and get your own health care?  Of course, hell, I know people that work as baggers in Shop Rite and have freakin health insurance, its really not that hard to get.
You have got to be the biggest idiot ever to believe in a negative tax system. You think that piece of shit system will get people out of poverty, by creating more poverty? It doesn't even make any sense, if your idea is to punish the poor to make them earn more or get an education. They already are by the fact that they live a less glamorous lifestyle than everyone else, not to mention the fact that they have to pay more for groceries, spend large amounts of time waiting for necessities that are at a much lower quality, are more depressed etc. The rich have no burden on them except being human and having slightly higher taxes. It makes perfect philosophical sense to tax them at a higher percentage than those who have virtually nothing. If you are one of those constitutional libertarians who believes "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" it would make perfect sense to support a progressive tax because studies have shown that once you get below a certain amount of money(I can look it up, if you want), increases in money do result in increases in happiness.

You are an idiot. Being dirt poor does not mean you are a moron and being rich doesn' make you a genius. There are various levels of subjectivity in both definitions of the term anyways. Besides you are using stupid anectdotes. There are thousands of pieces of statistics that show that the percentages of those who are super rich and rich who gain their wealth from inheritance or who's parents are wealthy goes up tremendously during Republican presidencies. The first quartile of scores on SAT's who's parents are poor go to college at rates of 30%, while the bottom quartile of scores on SAT's who's parents are rich go to college at rates of 33%. I think that shows that equal oppurtunity, which the government is supposed to strive for if you don't believe this I can't reason with you, doesn't exist in this country when it comes to going to college. Those baggers probably have medicaid. My family was on medicaid for an extended amount of time or we would have gone broke in the past due to medical costs. I thought liberitarians didn't believe Big Governmint systems counted though.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2009, 12:36:07 AM »

No, interfering with business isn't the role of the Federal government.
Did you just get out of your 1890's time machine today?

Ironically States has attacked the way we dealt with slavery so it should come as no surprise.

Care to add anything, or am I correct again?
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2009, 09:44:45 AM »
« Edited: August 02, 2009, 09:59:12 AM by anvikshiki »

Just a couple of observations after 45 people have submitted votes on this poll so far:

First, 95.6% of voters responding so far believe that the health care or health insurance industry needs some reform.  Secondly, I find it rather fascinating that the creation of state-by-state health insurance cooperatives is an incredibly unpopular option among this forum's voters, even though they seem to be the compromise of choice between Democratic Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans in some of the legislation being proposed in different versions of the bill.  Senator Rockafeller (D-WV) on the Senate finance committee has spent the last few days debunking state cooperatives as a solution to the health insurance problems in the U.S. too.  Still, it bespeaks a sadly but typically ineffectual congressional compromise that tries to split the difference between competing and highly desired plans with a plan that few actually want or think will really work.

Finally, the discussion in this forum has, predictably, taken an ideological turn with regard to the general effectiveness of government programs.  But let's, for the moment, consider the large-scale economic effects of the current system of heath care expenditure in the U.S. compared to alternative systems.  I don't by any means think this is the only or even the main reason why health care reform of some shape is desirable in the U.S., but I think looking at it this way may be a useful starting point.  I'll stipulate the following general formula:

Expenditures = Cost x Utilization

Our total heath care expenditures are the costs of all procedures and medications times the number of purchases of these.  Current U.S. expenditures represent 17% of our total GDP, compared to rates of between 6% and 9% in the other major industrialized nations, and in a few years, our expenditures will climb to 20% of our GDP spent on health care.  It would seem desirable, even from a purely economic perspective, to reduce our expenditures on health care so that we could free up the capital for other sectors of the economy so we could be more competitive with other countries. 

The reason that other industrialized counties manage health care expenditures so efficiently compared to the U.S., it seems, is that the governments of these counties are empowered to maintain relative market equilibrium in this industry, because they are able to negotiate costs or procedures and medicines along with other cost-saving measures as well as manipulate utilization through various forms of "rationing."  By comparison, the U.S. health care and health insurance sectors are burdened by various forms of inefficiency that wildly increase our expenditures.  Among the leading causes of this increase are; the large numbers of uninsured drives up premium costs and the costs of emergency care for the too-small pool of insured; heavy consolidation in the health insurance industry leads to minimized price competition for health insurance, again restricting buy-in; the "rationing" of utilization in the current American system, which takes the form of case-by-case coverage denial, necessitates bloated administrative costs in the insurance industry (20+% administrative costs in private firms compared to 2% administrative costs for Medicare); increased malpractice insurance rates for doctors because of potential lawsuit malpractice costs, ect.

However, various ideas for health care and insurance reform in the U.S. are hard-pressed to lower expenditures in the long-term.  While increasing utilization by employing various means of bringing more people into the pool of the insured will lower insurance costs to consumers in the short-term, if demand is not controlled, the prices of procedures and medicines will rise over time and total expenditures on health care will continue to increase.  In other words, current reform proposals that fail to manage both cost and utilization, as occurs in other industrialized countries, will in the long term increase both utilization and cost and therefore increase total expenditures. 

The economic dilemma we seem to be facing in the health care and insurance industry as a country is therefore the following: if we enact no reform, our country will be increasingly less competitive because of the amount of GDP devoted to health care relative to the amount devoted to other economic sectors; on the other hand, many current reform ideas, while lowering costs for consumers in the short-term, are ill-equipped to hold down total expenditures in the long-run.  This dilemma demands that we enact wise solutions to an increasingly dire economic problem in the U.S.  In this situation, ideological resistance to reform and reforms that fail to manage both cost and utilization are equally dangerous. 

While  I hold to my pledge not to cast a vote in this forum as the moderator, I will say that I personally think that some version of a single-payer system is the only viable long-term solution to the health care expenditure crisis in the U.S.  But, I formulated this thread to focus on solutions, because the right solution to the problem is precisely what we are in need of now.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2009, 12:29:48 PM »

None of the options listed are sensible.

I would institute a free market in health care, which means comprehensive deregulation of the insurance market and—still more importantly—revoking the favored status that health insurance enjoys under the federal income-tax regime. When "insurance" becomes insurance, and most health-care treatments are to be paid for by the individual, all will be well again.

The probability of this happening is equal to the probability that television will be extinct in 10 years, or that a few congressmen will read the Constitution of the United States.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,851


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2009, 03:53:32 PM »

None of the options listed are sensible.

I would institute a free market in health care, which means comprehensive deregulation of the insurance market and—still more importantly—revoking the favored status that health insurance enjoys under the federal income-tax regime. When "insurance" becomes insurance, and most health-care treatments are to be paid for by the individual, all will be well again.

Well, if you mean poors and olds dying in the streets, then yes, sure! Hooray, federalism or whatever!
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2009, 04:31:37 PM »

That's of course not what I mean, and you provide no reason for thinking it would be the consequence. (Amusingly enough, even if we granted that "poors" and "olds" would somehow go "without health care" under a market system, I'm not sure how that translates into their dying "in the streets.")
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2009, 05:49:12 PM »
« Edited: August 06, 2009, 05:51:14 PM by anvikshiki »

None of the options listed are sensible.

I would institute a free market in health care, which means comprehensive deregulation of the insurance market and—still more importantly—revoking the favored status that health insurance enjoys under the federal income-tax regime. When "insurance" becomes insurance, and most health-care treatments are to be paid for by the individual, all will be well again.


Philip,

I have two problems with the above.  The first is that most health care procedures and treatments cannot be afforded by individual consumers, particularly in the kind of downturn we are experiencing now.  It also amounts to saying that those who might not be able to pay the market cost of health care treatments do not deserve to receive them, regardless of what circumstances occasioned that inability to pay.  Say a good, law-abiding, hard working guy employed at a factory and supporting a spouse and two children gets his job outsourced and suddenly finds himself unable to afford the coverage that pays for the cancer treatments one of his children needs?  How could what you write above be "all well" for this guy and his family?

The other difficulty I have with this is that buying insurance is not like buying other items on the market.  When I go to a grocery store and want to buy apples, so long as I am willing to pay the agreed price for the apples, the supermarket will not deny me the transaction.  The supermarket views the transaction as a gain for them so long as they are able to cover the costs of providing the apples and make whatever profit the market-value of the product allows.  But, in most places in the U.S., health insurance does not work this way.  Health insurance companies do not have guaranteed issue; they will not sell many consumers their product even if the consumer is willing to pay the premium at which the insurance is offered, or they will sell you the insurance only after excluding certain health care procedures from your coverage because they calculate that covering such care of procedures would not cover their costs.  That puts the consumer of private health insurance in the position of paying the full costs of a premium but not getting the product that others who bought the same product receive.  And so, we have an insurance industry operating on free market principles but which not only excludes many potential customers from coverage, but also passes the massive costs of determining which customers or procedures should be excluded to their existing customers.  Therefore, it seems to me, even one who believed that insurance should operate according to principles of the free market should at least wish insurance was more like other free market products.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2009, 10:04:55 AM »

Another thing people must get over is Tort Reform. What part of the 7th and 14th Amendment don't you understand? And besides, the Consitution already covers Tort Reform. It's called the 8th Amendment. Gore v. BMW.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 14 queries.