Republicans and Libertarians -a health care question....

[Frodo]

I assume that we all want the same thing (cost-effective universal coverage) but through different means:

If you were President, how would you fix the health care system?  How would you make it cost-effective while achieving universal coverage? 

 

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

You can't ensure that everyone will always be covered, even in a universal system. People will always find a way to opt out of the system. So with that in mind, I accept that as a fact and subsequently come to the conclusion that the only way to keep prices down, quality of care up and access to care up is by letting the free market handle the issue.

Just my opinion, though.

[Secretary Polnut]

You can't ensure that everyone will always be covered, even in a universal system. People will always find a way to opt out of the system. So with that in mind, I accept that as a fact and subsequently come to the conclusion that the only way to keep prices down, quality of care up and access to care up is by letting the free market handle the issue.

Just my opinion, though.

ahhh ha...

Because the market might encourage competition and COULD force down costs that way... you also have competing pressures to keep costs down by not covering people who would cost too much to cover. Look at airlines? more people want to fly, but in order to cover costs the quality of service drops and the inclusions become fewer.

Plus, healthcare is an essential service, if people need it and are able to pay, they will be the ones who will benefit. What real desire will there be to reduce costs on a service that people need as oppose to want.

It's kind of amusing how quickly they'll accept lies about the standard of care we in universal system get, but are unable to accept the shortcomings in their own standards.

[white trash heroes]

You can't ensure that everyone will always be covered, even in a universal system. People will always find a way to opt out of the system. So with that in mind, I accept that as a fact and subsequently come to the conclusion that the only way to keep prices down, quality of care up and access to care up is by letting the free market handle the issue.

Just my opinion, though.

ahhh ha...

Because the market might encourage competition and COULD force down costs that way... you also have competing pressures to keep costs down by not covering people who would cost too much to cover. Look at airlines? more people want to fly, but in order to cover costs the quality of service drops and the inclusions become fewer.

Airlines are a bad example because they've always been heavily subsidized, even to this day. And there was deregulation in the '70s that brought down prices.

Plus, healthcare is an essential service, if people need it and are able to pay, they will be the ones who will benefit. What real desire will there be to reduce costs on a service that people need as oppose to want.

Well, to me the real issue is that insurance has a disincentive to provide coverage to the people that need it most. Since you know, they're insurance companies. It wouldn't make economic sense for them to insure someone they already know has cancer or something. It's like buying flood insurance after a hurricane.. Except you know, everyone gets sick or hurt at some point. That's why Americans need a comprehensive system. It may not be "optimally efficient" economically but the alternative is horrifying to me. Plus you know, containing spread of disease and all that in the event of emergency if you want to go the utilitarian route.

It's kind of amusing how quickly they'll accept lies about the standard of care we in universal system get, but are unable to accept the shortcomings in their own standards.

Well it's worse because as I've pointed out americans actually have had had unusually long wait times (only canada ranks worse), yet people keep repeating this idiotic talking point when it can be debunked with a 1 minute google search. Maybe it was true in 1993, but it's not now.

[dead0man]

I'm actually not against "universal coverage"...I'm just not sure how we are going to properly compensate the people coming up with the new drugs, technologies, etc if it's all government run.  Who is going to decide if that 55 year old meth addict is going to get a new liver or not.  Clearly everybody can't get ALL the care they need and anybody that tells you they can is a liar with an agenda or an ignorant with an agenda.  Some people are going to get better care than others.  In our current system it's the people with good insurance or tons of money.  There are others that get excellent care without either, but there are others that need the care that can't get it.  It certainly isn't always fair.

But what if the govt takes over, doesn't have the money to properly compensate the people that need compensating and those talented people start doing something else?  What if the lack of compensation causes new drugs or new technologies to not come to market on time or not at all?  People don't figure this sh**t out out of the goodness of their heart, they do it for a pay check.  If you (or more likely, a company) cure cancer, you (or the company) deserve to be a kajabillionare.  We're already running into the problem of not enough doctors practicing certain kinds of medicine in certain places because it's just not worth it even though there is a shortage of them.  If everybody is getting care this will only be worse.  Where will the hundreds of thousands of new doctors come from?

All that said, I still think the BEST system would involve a government safety net.  There is no reason to bankrupt a lower middle class family because mom got breast cancer at 37.  And there is no reason to screw City Hospital because mom (and a thosand other people) didn't pay her bill. I don't know what the solution is or how it would work, but the current system certainly isn't as good as it should be.  I'm not going to say it's broken, because it obviously isn't for the majority of us.  I'm thinking something like catastrophic coverage for everybody and more clinics for the less catastrophic care.  There should be places to go where people can have their kid get a cast put on their leg that isn't a hospital, doesn't require an over worked doctor to look at it and doesn't cost $7000.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Because the market might encourage competition and COULD force down costs that way... you also have competing pressures to keep costs down by not covering people who would cost too much to cover. Look at airlines? more people want to fly, but in order to cover costs the quality of service drops and the inclusions become fewer.

Plus, healthcare is an essential service, if people need it and are able to pay, they will be the ones who will benefit. What real desire will there be to reduce costs on a service that people need as oppose to want.

It's kind of amusing how quickly they'll accept lies about the standard of care we in universal system get, but are unable to accept the shortcomings in their own standards.

Ghost_white made the point about airlines.

As dead0man said, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of universal healthcare. I believe it's noble and perhaps the government should only insure the poorest citizens of the country, while others can opt in to the system. Just so long as there's an "opt out" option.

[shua]

I'd take away the employer-sponsored plan tax deduction, and put forward a tax credit for individual/family coverage, plus unlimited health savings accounts.  For people with preexisting conditions, have high-risk pools and/or a system where everyone has the ability to buy coverage at a nondiscriminatory rate at a certain time during the year.  That wouldn't be a perfect solution, but along with some other things, I think it would help a lot in terms of coverage and cost.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Drastically reduce licensing/credentialism requirements, end prescription drug laws, reform the medical lawsuit/tort legal system, end the patent monopoly system, restore the FDA more to 1960s standards, allow people and companies to deduct healthcare spending for their taxes, allow people with the money to buy whatever type of treatment they choose(essentially, letting rich people be the guinea pigs who discover what is quack medicine and what works) and establish singlepayer on top of it(people could buy their own plans, but there'd be a government floor)

This would mean sped up drug development, universal coverage and a drastic reduction of costs.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     A thought I had back when liberals were talking about the low overhead costs of Medicare was having a sort of "free market public option". That is, a government insurance company that cannot draw from taxpayer dollars & must fund itself exclusively through user premiums. It could be designed to run in a strictly non-profit fashion & would force private insurers to reduce their rates through stiff competition. It could even have progressively-structured premiums to benefit the poor.

     Of course, that assumes that there is in fact some truth to those claims in regards to the overhead costs of Medicare, or that I even remember those claims correctly.