National Health Care

[ringworm]

Yep, another pointless thread that will explode with "Why cant you be like all the other Western Nations?" "It is the governments role to provide health care"

But I have a few points I never see addressed at all in National Health Care threads.

1 Over inflated charges
Here is my top reason why even middle class families are starting to have a difficult time keeping coverage. Medical providers charge erroneous amounts simply because they can. What watchdog organization could even begin to cope with keeping an eye on outrageous charges by every office practicing in this country? In turn, Insurance providers simply pass this cost onto its members. Hence the co-pay era we live in today.
Only a few years ago, this wasn't even a standard practice for a doctor visit. You went, you got treated, you went home. I paid 34 cents every 2 weeks for BCBS, no co-pays, nothing else. I now pay $54 per week AND the total bill may not be covered completely.


2 Greedy corporations
I wont get too deep into this, but with companies unwilling to decrease the massive amounts of income eaten up by its own presidents and CEO's etc, why is this never an issue to try and make things more affordable for everyone else by limiting the number of zero's on a person's salary?


3 How every government controlled program turns up
Take a look at the farm industry. I dont really think enough people know how bad the agriculture industry is in the US. Without typing an entire book, it is a money pit with no rescue in sight. Large lobbyists syphon well over 3/4 of government assistance, yet provide nothing, real farmers that do produce barely get by and each year it falls further and further into a quagmire.

(On a side note, the corruption is only going to continue, hence why ethanol is being promoted as the new fuel.
Salivating lips can't wait to get federal grants for this new fiasco being politically promoted as saving our planet, lol)

4 Illegal Immigrants
No matter what your stance is, it can't be denied that people with no money, job or insurance have flooded ER's and hospitals which pass these costs onto us.

5 Employers
Cheap labor, nuff said. All jobs should come with accompanying Health Care, no matter what the wage. I would be willing to pay $7 for a single cheese from Wendy's instead of $2 if this was the result of more low paying jobs giving employees health care. The practice of making money off of mass produced items has shrunk the actual profit off individual pieces to almost nothing, they make money by selling billions of products. Undercutting competitors by pennies and dimes has made almost every product we buy a fraction higher than the cost to produce it. (This section is weak, my boss came back early :))

So, why should we allow problems to be overlooked that could easily resolve our healthcare crisis by creating an entirely new way to exploit the American people?

Hopefully, you'll see that opposers of NHC's arent trying to keep people from getting coverage, we're just trying to correct a once great system!

I just posted a few things that I never see discussed in the usual NHC derailments, we'll see what happens. :p

[g°®†]

C'est la vi

[italic zero]

1 Over inflated charges
Single payer would allow the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices and drastically reduce overhead. Furthermore, most systems would have price controls built in (of course a lot of people would view that as a negative).
2 Greedy corporations
why is this never an issue to try and make things more affordable for everyone else by limiting the number of zero's on a person's salary?
Because virtually anyone who is opposed to national health care is also opposed to salary caps.
3 How every government controlled program turns up
Or you could look at the successful government programs. It's not like NHI hasn't been implemented. France, Germany, and the VA are all doing quite well. The agricultural industry is far from comparable to the health care industry.
4 Illegal Immigrants
NHI would decrease the strain on ERs, and I don't see the fundamental problem with providing health care to those who need it.
55 Employers
Cheap labor, nuff said. All jobs should come with accompanying Health Care, no matter what the wage. I would be willing to pay $7 for a single cheese from Wendy's instead of $2 if this was the result of more low paying jobs giving employees health care.
No one else would so that would fail. Tying health care to employment simply doesn't work anymore. Health care is far too expensive and job security is not what it used to be.

[ringworm]

No one else would so that would fail
you dont think workers flocking to another locale or company that offers health care wouldnt make others follow suit to compete?
Health care is far too expensive and job security is not what it used to be.
thats exactly what i mean, lets MAKE it more affordable
unchecked revenue provided by government only makes things more expensive from my experience, see higher education for example
NHI would decrease the strain on ERs, and I don't see the fundamental problem with providing health care to those who need it.
neither do i, we already pay for others free health care anyway, I am not against it, I am against the current way of achieving it without properly acknowledging the many faults that will only further the problems with our countries health care if not corrected
The agricultural industry is far from comparable to the health care industry.
eh, I dont see how, its poorly run and anyone who thinks that any other US gvnt run institution is competent and capable of handling health care is only adding to the problem
Because virtually anyone who is opposed to national health care is also opposed to salary caps.
the only people with the power to control salaries are the stockholders of that company, I didnt mean salary caps instituted by legislation, just responsible business, but thats like asking for responsible gvnt, I know :)

[italic zero]

you dont think workers flocking to another locale or company that offers health care wouldnt make others follow suit to compete?
There is no labor shortage in America.
thats exactly what i mean, lets MAKE it more affordable
It's not that simple.
unchecked revenue provided by government only makes things more expensive from my experience, see higher education for example
That's why it's not unchecked funding.
eh, I dont see how, its poorly run and anyone who thinks that any other US gvnt run institution is competent and capable of handling health care is only adding to the problem
To be clear, even most single payer proposals would be government funded, not government run. But it's pretty clear that there are some major differences between the agricultural industry and the health care industry and that there are far better comparisons you could have made than isolating the fact that agriculture is heavily subsidized and then proclaiming that government involvement is bad.
the only people with the power to control salaries are the stockholders of that company, I didnt mean salary caps instituted by legislation, just responsible business, but thats like asking for responsible gvnt
OK so how is this "easily resolv[ing] our health care crisis"?

[beso negro]

Socialized medicine is an awful idea because it would increase waiting times and make overall health care worse. Why would i trust the government with my health anyways? Plus i refuse to pay for the idiots who refuse to live healthy. America needs a free market system.

theres a reason why people come to america from canada to get treatment.

[ringworm]

There is no labor shortage in America
i know, we have greedy corporations to thank for the surplus of low paying jobs with no benefits that are causing present day burdens on everyone
It's not that simple.
but its a start
That's why it's not unchecked funding.
To be clear, even most single payer proposals would be government funded, not government run
both of which are open for massive abuse
and that there are far better comparisons you could have made than isolating the fact that agriculture is heavily subsidized and then proclaiming that government involvement is bad.
it was and is a good example of a possibility of how health care could be run
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html
OK so how is this "easily resolv[ing] our health care crisis"?
yeah, we're getting a little off topic with this one, but I just meant some of the losses many Insurance Co. file could be eaten up by smaller salaries at the top of the chain, they whine about profit loss but pay the heads billions, even if they perform badly, they get million dollar severance packages, but we're talking private business that can do what they want.

mostly, my points are reform, reform, reform, our system is good, but exploitation has ruined it

[Hababi]

The US already spends more than almost every other nation in the world on public funding expenditures related to health care. Why is that? In part because of the amount of preventable calamatous situations that rack up big ER bills.

I would hate to see the government run health care, or force everyone to buy government issued insurance. But the idea of the government making sure that everyone is able to have insurance makes a whole lot of sense. It's economically better and socially better.

And, here's a way to make sure everyone gets annual checkups: have the government provide them. You get one free annual checkup. If you refuse to get it, you get a $200 fine.


Also, give tax incentives for getting in shape or staying in shape. A whole lot of health costs could be reduced if Americans would lose weight.

[lfantwister]

And, here's a way to make sure everyone gets annual checkups: have the government provide them. You get one free annual checkup. If you refuse to get it, you get a $200 fine. and the funding for the free checkups...? Plus, that seems so easily avoidable. Just call up your doctor and make adeal.


Also, give tax incentives for getting in shape or staying in shape. A whole lot of health costs could be reduced if Americans would lose weight.
Or they could just buy their own insurance and pay that tax through higher premiums. It is absolutely not the government's role to determine what people do (or don't do) to their bodies

[Hababi]

and the funding for the free checkups...?

Actually, I'll modify that: free for those who get an earned income tax credit. Tax deductable for all others. How to pay for it? Have payroll tax apply to all income, not just the first $82,000.

Plus, that seems so easily avoidable. Just call up your doctor and make adeal.

Since the government is paying for it, govt gets to decide where you go for it. So, only trustworthy doctors get approved.



Or they could just buy their own insurance and pay that tax through higher premiums. It is absolutely not the government's role to determine what people do (or don't do) to their bodies

And what about for people with preexisting conditions that are not their fault? The market doesn't work for the sick, the old, or the young.

[beso negro]

Since the government is paying for it, govt gets to decide where you go for it. So, only trustworthy doctors get approved.

so there will be major waiting time for a check up then. The best doctors will leave the country if the US implements socialized medicine.

[Hababi]

so there will be major waiting time for a check up then. The best doctors will leave the country if the US implements socialized medicine.

Where would they go?

[Berner]

theres a reason why people come to america from canada to get treatment.
And those people are generally the richer people that can afford to. The rich don't make up a large portion of the public in any country though so a NHS helps those who have no opportunity to receive treatment in a free market setting. Granted it may not be as good, or as speedy, but it is better than no medical treatment, or treatment that is accompanied by such substantial debt that you'll never be able get out of it.

[Knifeboy]

theres a reason why people come to america from canada to get treatment.

Yes, but unlike what you tried to imply, it's not because Canada's NHS is subpar

America has the best, most expensive private hospitals in the world
of course rich people will go there

And rich people would still go to you even if you had a NHS, because those expensive private hospitals for the rich would still be there

[McP3000]

I hate this debate

America would implode if a Nationalize healthcare system was implemented so why are we even arguing.
Not to mention that people act like a huge chunk of the population can't get healthcare or something. Most (and by most i mean a very large percentage) people can afford healthcare except in extreme life-threatening circumstances anyway. It's inevitable and unavoidable.

I also hate how people say "rich" so often too. By rich, you actually mean middle class and above...because those brackets can actually afford healthcare in today's system.
Unless you consider boob jobs healthcare

[Hababi]

I hate this debate

America would implode if a Nationalize healthcare system was implemented so why are we even arguing.

:confused: So why is it that every other first world country can have some form of national health care, but not the US? This, while they manage to spend less per capita on health care (all but two).



Not to mention that people act like a huge chunk of the population can't get healthcare or something. Most (and by most i mean a very large percentage) people can afford healthcare except in extreme life-threatening circumstances anyway. It's inevitable and unavoidable.




The whole point of national health care is to avoid the circumstances where people die of preventable causes.

[Against Miik!]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4

Not saying this is right or wrong, this is just one viewpoint that backs up this thread, sort of. I know lots of you hate this guy. Sry.

[ringworm]

that was pretty good, but it will fall on deaf ears to what is really wrong with our health care. I like Stossel and cant see why someone would hate him, but I dont understand why more people dont like Ron Paul either :) they only out stuff out there to consider.
Even the intelligent people seem to completely ignore facts of whats wrong with US healthcare and shoot straight past them onto irrelevant items or solutions that will only come back to the original faults.


The main reason why its so unattainable is because no one questions the costs being charged.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Smaller claims would be good for you guys. My cousins insurance is insane, and he hasn't even been sued yet.

[PerpetualBurn]

Where's he work?

I'm sure I can get a claim in if he's still green.

[Iskandar]

Yes, but unlike what you tried to imply, it's not because Canada's NHS is subpar

America has the best, most expensive private hospitals in the world
of course rich people will go there

And rich people would still go to you even if you had a NHS, because those expensive private hospitals for the rich would still be thereOur system isn't one of the best out there, but its flaws are really way overstated. It's mostly Americans (and Canadians who have emigrated) who complain about it.

Also great point about the rich seeking private care. Americans always talk about how many Canadians go there for surgery or whatever, but never mention that the type of person who would do so would be a rich person in a position to seek private options in another country.
America would implode if a Nationalize healthcare system was implemented so why are we even arguing.How the hell would it implode?

[Knifeboy]

Our system isn't one of the best out there, but its flaws are really way overstated.

And its flaws are irrelevant anyway in this case seeing how it's rich people from all over the world that goes to America to get surgery

[Futue te Ipsum]

Where's he work?

I'm sure I can get a claim in if he's still green.Somewhere in boston. His second name is cohen, I'm sure that's rare amongst doctors in america.

[beso negro]

Where would they go?

a country with a free market system in place.

How the hell would it implode?

prices would skyrocket. i and everyone else would be pissed about the rising taxes and America becoming closer to socialism.

And rich people would still go to you even if you had a NHS, because those expensive private hospitals for the rich would still be there

America would no longer be the most innovative and cutting edge when it comes to medicine with NHS in place.

[Knifeboy]

America would no longer be the most innovative and cutting edge when it comes to medicine with NHS in place.



Uuuuhhh.... what?
who would challenge you

[lfantwister]

any number of countries whose free market economies encourage innovation and growth, instead of stagnating development like NHS would

[PerpetualBurn]

Drug companies still sell drugs under an NHS.

[Knifeboy]

any number of countries whose free market economies encourage innovation and growth, instead of stagnating development like NHS would

You do realise that there's no countries left to do that right

[italic zero]

prices would skyrocket.
Because virtually every public system including medicare has been more successful at containing prices than the American private system.

[Hababi]

a country with a free market system in place.

Where would that be? America is the only post-industrial nation without a national health care policy in place. You mean to tell me that people are going to go to a developing nation, with inferior pay and an inferior standard of living, just to avoid working under a system that makes sure that everyone can give them business?



prices would skyrocket. i and everyone else would be pissed about the rising taxes and America becoming closer to socialism.


Actually in America prices are much higher than in many countries with national health care.

America would no longer be the most innovative and cutting edge when it comes to medicine with NHS in place.

Germany has a national health care plan, better health care, and more research per capita.

[ringworm]

Actually in America prices are much higher than in many countries with national health care
so, by mirroring other countries health care, the average American that is getting raped by the health care industry can expect to see the corporations lower their profits for the sake of, "they dont pay as much in Germany for _________ service?" just curious

And also, check out the taxes these countries have to pay for these services as well. See Sweden for example. Here, wages are stagnant, while everything else is rising. Can we expect to see wages increase as we implement these "progressive" items to Americas already weighed down, inneffective, unchecked and abused systems?

Can the average American even afford a small tax hike when currently we feel overtaxed as it is? Then try to imagine what a large tax hike would do to the budget of even middle class households, little less the growing lower class paychecks. But with so many people with no means of supporting themselves, I can see why these ideas are being pushed, at the expense of everyone above them that are struggling to make it.

Of course, if we didnt spend kazillions every week on war, so many like me wouldnt be as heated on these topics as we are, but even with greatly reducing our spending in non critical areas, we'd be ignorant to think a huge increase in taxes didnt coincide with them. I still side with the, "Lets really take a good look and FIX our great system" before dumping it and creating yet another failed program. But hey…:)

[Hababi]

The prices are much more the result of a lack of government regulation, not the role of government in the health care system itself. When you're dealing in many cases with virtual monopolies on goods with no demand curve, for the government to not involve itself in the protection of the consumer leads to rampant abuse.

As for Sweden, a lot of its taxes go to other, less efficient aspects of the welfare state. Remember, Sweden has one of the most involved welfare states in the world. They're really not a good comparison for the US. Australia would be a better one.

Two stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita

Notice that only Iceland and Germany spends more per capita on health care, and Germany just barely (and with better results).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_pub_of_gdp-health-expenditure-public-of-gdp

I think that this can dispel the notion that all the nations with national health care devote a huge amount of their GDP to it, at the expense of other investments. While it is true that some nations with national health care rank above the US, some rank beneath the US. Heck even the sucky Canadian system does.

We're already invested in the health care of some, through CHIPS and other programs designed to ensure poor children. So, it's actually a smaller step to say that the government should make sure that everyone can get coverage than to say that the government has no role in it.

As for tax cuts, I don't think that the middle class would feel it. Make the payroll tax fair, close some of the corporate loopholes that have come about, and yes, increase the tax on the wealthiest of individuals, and you can pay for it. If you do it right in the long run, as several of those countries illustrate, we could have a better and more efficient system than we have now. And ultimately, that should be our goal.

[McP3000]

How the hell would it implode?
We don't have the money to employment to do so. Not to mention the thousands of people that would be left unemployed after the removal of private insurance.

The prices are much more the result of a lack of government regulation, not the role of government in the health care system itself. When you're dealing in many cases with virtual monopolies on goods with no demand curve, for the government to not involve itself in the protection of the consumer leads to rampant abuse.
What are you talking about?
The abuse and overpricing comes from our out of control insurance industry, not the free market and lack of "government control". If anything, the more the government intervenes, the higher the rates go.

[Hababi]

We don't have the money to employment to do so. Not to mention the thousands of people that would be left unemployed after the removal of private insurance.

Who said remove private insurance? I think you misunderstand the proposals, at least the ones being put forth by the Democrat candidates. The idea isn't to end private insurance and put everyone under a government plan, it's only to ensure that everyone can get covered. And this doomsday scenario just doesn't hold up in comparison.


What are you talking about?
The abuse and overpricing comes from our out of control insurance industry, not the free market and lack of "government control". If anything, the more the government intervenes, the higher the rates go.

:confused: So why are drugs so much cheaper in virtually every other country, including those who have a national health care plan?

Patent law has some to do with the high costs, along with the inability of medicare to negotiate lower prices (a product of lobbying by the drug companies).

[McP3000]

Who said remove private insurance? I think you misunderstand the proposals, at least the ones being put forth by the Democrat candidates. The idea isn't to end private insurance and put everyone under a government plan, it's only to ensure that everyone can get covered. And this doomsday scenario just doesn't hold up in comparison.

Oh, sorry...ive been watching too much sicko

:confused: So why are drugs so much cheaper in virtually every other country, including those who have a national health care plan?

Patent law has some to do with the high costs, along with the inability of medicare to negotiate lower prices (a product of lobbying by the drug companies).
We can lower drug prices if insurance companies were removed. They charge ridiculous amounts because they know that 90% (random statistic fyi) of their sales will be paid by Blue Cross. If the average middle income person was responsible for payment, then the drug companies would have more to compete for and prices would lower.

[RockAndRoll]

Not to mention the thousands of people that would be left unemployed after the removal of private insurance.
...
We can lower drug prices if insurance companies were removed.
What exactly are you advocating?

[beso negro]

:confused: So why are drugs so much cheaper in virtually every other country, including those who have a national health care plan?

because america subsidizes the development of those drugs

[Hababi]

because america subsidizes the development of those drugs

Germany and several other countries rival us in terms of medical and pharmaceutical development.

[McP3000]

...

What exactly are you advocating?
Im advocating neither

i was just pointing out that its not inherently the evil of the free market, but the compounding problem of the insurance industry.

I personally dont want insurance companies to exist, but removing them would be impractical.

[McP3000]

Germany and several other countries rival us in terms of medical and pharmaceutical development.
:lol:

facts? Stats?

I've never seen a drug from Germany tbqh

[RockAndRoll]

Im advocating neither

i was just pointing out that its not inherently the evil of the free market, but the compounding problem of the insurance industry.

I personally dont want insurance companies to exist, but removing them would be impractical.

I don't really understand this position. You and ringowrm both seem to acknowledge that there are problems (insurance companies, ceo's taking too much money etc etc) with the way that the healthcare system works. Wether it's an inherent evil of the free market system or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a free market and lack of regulations has allowed these things to happen.

It seems to me that you guys are saying things like "well all we need is for CEO's to not take as much money" or whichever stance. However, you refuse to actually impose these regulations to make this happen and expect them to simply happen on their own. That's not a solution though. It's simply wishing that the problems didn't exist.

[McP3000]

I don't really understand this position. You and ringowrm both seem to acknowledge that there are problems (insurance companies, ceo's taking too much money etc etc) with the way that the healthcare system works. Wether it's an inherent evil of the free market system or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a free market and lack of regulations has allowed these things to happen.

It seems to me that you guys are saying things like "well all we need is for CEO's to not take as much money" or whichever stance. However, you refuse to actually impose these regulations to make this happen and expect them to simply happen on their own. That's not a solution though. It's simply wishing that the problems didn't exist.
Fair enough point

However a NHS isn't the solution.

[RockAndRoll]

Fair enough point

However a NHS isn't the solution.

Okay, but if there are problems within the market which aren't going to solve themselves (which I think you would say is true) then how do you propse they be solved? Are there certain regulations you would want to see?

[Iskandar]

prices would skyrocket. i and everyone else would be pissed about the rising taxes and America becoming closer to socialism.That's because 99% of Americans, you included I'm assuming, don't even know what socialism is besides that all socialism is, like, Communism.

[gregulus]

That's because 99% of Americans, you included I'm assuming, don't even know what socialism is besides that all socialism is, like, Communism.
FOR THE MOTHERLAND!

[griftadan]

1 Over inflated charges
Here is my top reason why even middle class families are starting to have a difficult time keeping coverage. Medical providers charge erroneous amounts simply because they can. What watchdog organization could even begin to cope with keeping an eye on outrageous charges by every office practicing in this country? In turn, Insurance providers simply pass this cost onto its members. Hence the co-pay era we live in today.
Only a few years ago, this wasn't even a standard practice for a doctor visit. You went, you got treated, you went home. I paid 34 cents every 2 weeks for BCBS, no co-pays, nothing else. I now pay $54 per week AND the total bill may not be covered completely.

yeah insurance completely negates price competition, one of the stronger market forces that puts downward pressure on prices. NHS doesn't fix this it just passes off the high prices to the government.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Except it actually does reduce the cost.

Significantly.

[Dave de Sylvia]

America has the least efficient healthcare system in the world bar none. Well, maybe barring Iraq or Kenya, but in the western world at least, and it's partly a function of the personal insurance system. You Americans need to learn that health is not a commodity.

[Sleep]

Socialized medicine is an awful idea because it would increase waiting times and make overall health care worse. Why would i trust the government with my health anyways?

america's infant mortality rate is abysmal. and life expectancy is significantly lower in america than in canada and the uk.

prices would skyrocket. i and everyone else would be pissed about the rising taxes and America becoming closer to socialism.

don't a majority of americans support universal health care?

[Misanthropic]

just as an example: over here, we have universal health care, and there still exists private companies as well (which are expensive, but still used by the wealthiest people). i don't see how this system can be regarded anything as bad - if you're sick, you get treatment, even if you don't have the money. the part about waiting times is bs - if it's an acute problem, you get treatment immediately.

i guess the examples in sicko are "out of context" and all, but i suppose they still did happen (the part when he's visiting europe is true though). the guy with the finger accident, the 911 people who didn't get treatment, the people not affording health care - none of that would have happened here.

[griftadan]

Except it actually does reduce the cost.

Significantly.

does it?

[italic zero]

in practice at least maybe not in theory

[gregulus]

does it?

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes

unrelated, but interesting.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

[Futue te Ipsum]

in practice at least maybe not in theoryWhich merely suggests that the theory is wrong. :p

[-1up!-]

In Canada the quality of treatments is pretty renowned; the only problem is the waiting lines, since the door is pretty much closed tight to private health care services (at least it is in Quebec). The best solution would probably be the coexistence of both a national health care service and private health care services for those who have the ability to pay; I think it would considerably remove the stress on the public system.

[beso negro]

The fact is that a free market and lack of regulations has allowed these things to happen.

currently the US does NOT have a free market health care system in place. more of a hybrid.

eg. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, HIPPA, COBRA...

[Iskandar]

In Canada the quality of treatments is pretty renowned; the only problem is the waiting lines, since the door is pretty much closed tight to private health care services (at least it is in Quebec). The best solution would probably be the coexistence of both a national health care service and private health care services for those who have the ability to pay; I think it would considerably remove the stress on the public system.We do have private clinics, and rightfully they are wholly separate from the public system.

[Dave de Sylvia]

currently the US does NOT have a free market health care system in place. more of a hybrid.

eg. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, HIPPA, COBRA...
OK, the US has a free market health system, except for the government programs which mainly take care of the most expensive groups- the elderly and chronically ill.

Wait, that doesn't help your case.

[Iskandar]

What the hell is a "free-market health system" anyway? If it's a healthcare system with which the government is not involved at all, it doesn't exist anywhere.

[McP3000]

What the hell is a "free-market health system" anyway? If it's a healthcare system with which the government is not involved at all, it doesn't exist anywhere.
what

Anyway, im sure the overpricing of medical bills is because of the free-market/insurance company hybrid. The price of healthcare would lower significantly if the insurance industry was put to sleep.

[italic zero]

the health care industry would collapse if there were no forms of insurance

[McP3000]

the health care industry would collapse if there were no forms of insurance
what

[italic zero]

without health insurance the number of people who could afford catastrophic care would be far too small to support the industry, meaning that only the routine care industry could survive, though the two are probably so closely linked that the former would drag the latter down with it

[McP3000]

without health insurance the number of people who could afford catastrophic care would be far too small to support the industry
Wow. Your 8th grade deduction skills are working great.

gg

[italic zero]

it's ok if you don't understand how insurance works but you should admit it

even cato doesn't want to get rid of insurance entirely

[Dave de Sylvia]

what

Anyway, im sure the overpricing of medical bills is because of the free-market/insurance company hybrid. The price of healthcare would lower significantly if the insurance industry was put to sleep.
What alternative do you support?

[gregulus]

what

Anyway, im sure the overpricing of medical bills is because of the free-market/insurance company hybrid. The price of healthcare would lower significantly if the insurance industry was put to sleep.

Why do you say that?

[beso negro]

Why do you say that?

people get unnecessary overtreatment because of insurance companies.

people make better use out of their money when its coming out of their own pockets.

without health insurance the number of people who could afford catastrophic care would be far too small to support the industry, meaning that only the routine care industry could survive, though the two are probably so closely linked that the former would drag the latter down with it

i agree things would get worse at first but the rich could still afford it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

People tend not to get treated when it's coming out of their pocket.

[beso negro]

if you dont have the money tough luck bud this is america.

[Tyrant21]

if you dont have the money tough luck bud this is america.

haha, maybe that should be our motto


i dont know if you ar serious or not...i hope not

[Dave de Sylvia]

if you dont have the money tough luck bud this is america.
If I don't have the money the cost gets passed along to you...

[Futue te Ipsum]

if you dont have the money tough luck bud this is america.And what proud statistics you would have.

"Lowest life span in the western world!"

Some people apparently don't understand just how strongly the economy is impacted by poor health in its population.

[Dave de Sylvia]

"Toughest luck this side of Sierra Leone!"

[beso negro]

If I don't have the money the cost gets passed along to you...

im not following. how would this happen in my system.

And what proud statistics you would have.

"Lowest life span in the western world!"

Some people apparently don't understand just how strongly the economy is impacted by poor health in its population.

but with a free market we would assume lower prices so middle class could afford it. its not like everyone has brain tumors. I have never been ill. never missed a day of school. most Americans are healthy as it is, even people without healthcare live into their 50s at least.

[Dave de Sylvia]

im not following. how would this happen in my system.
Hospitals have astronomical fixed costs. If demand for treatment declines, as it would if insurance ceased to exist, hospitals would be forced to either raise charges or lower costs by lowering the standard of care.

but with a free market we would assume lower prices so middle class could afford it.
what

[beso negro]

Hospitals would have to just get rid of unnecessary treatments. No more CT scans for children who suffer a bump on the head. No more old folks hooked up to life support. Unless of course people have the money to do this.

what

more competition. people will shop for the best price, just like they do with their car insurance.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Hospitals would have to just get rid of unnecessary treatments. No more CT scans for children who suffer a bump on the head.
That doesn't negate the fact that having the equipment and personnel to operate a CT scan costs money. Somebody has to pay for it.

more competition. people will shop for the best price, just like they do with their car insurance.
For elective procedures, sure. Most people don't have that luxury.

[1338 h4x0r]

most Americans are healthy as it is, even people without healthcare live into their 50s at least.

*cough* Obesity *hack*

[ringworm]

people get unnecessary overtreatment because of insurance companies.

people make better use out of their money when its coming out of their own pockets.
i agree

its how the system has been designed, make the average person unaware of the ridiculous charges and make them feel like since they arent really spending anything, its no biggie, then raise everyones premiums to cover pay for the charges, and still make huge profits, and all of us sheep go on thinking otherwise

[gregulus]

Hospitals would have to just get rid of unnecessary treatments. No more CT scans for children who suffer a bump on the head. No more old folks hooked up to life support. Unless of course people have the money to do this.
and what about the people that actually need CT scans? what about the costs of the machines (which aren't cheap)? what about the costs of maintaining a competent staff? who's to say what is necessary and unnecessary? "we could save your fathers life, but we decided not too because it would just cost too much money."

insurance companies are what allow people to afford health care. without those, hospitals wouldn't be able to maintain a sufficient quality of care.

more competition. people will shop for the best price, just like they do with their car insurance.
the cost of car insurance isn't really comparable to the cost of medical technology.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Lol, CT scans for people who get bumps on the head, yeah ****ing right. I can tell you now that they don't do that here.

[beso negro]

and what about the people that actually need CT scans? what about the costs of the machines (which aren't cheap)? what about the costs of maintaining a competent staff?

people will have to find a clinic that has one. lets not give homeless people CT scans and cure them of brain tumors just because we can.

insurance companies are what allow people to afford health care. without those, hospitals wouldn't be able to maintain a sufficient quality of care.

i'm only against americans getting insurance through their employer.

[italic zero]

well that's good because it's much better to get it through the government

[beso negro]

well that's good because it's much better to get it through the government

as long as i get my money back at the end of the year if i don't visit the hospital. and homeless people and such should not get coverage.

and private clinics better still be legal.

[Smokey D]

A single course of treatment or expensive procedure can cost more than everything you pay in taxes. It wouldn't make sense for you to receive a rebate since the whole idea is building a pool of funds.

[Dave de Sylvia]

as long as i get my money back at the end of the year if i don't visit the hospital. and homeless people and such should not get coverage.

and private clinics better still be legal.
Aren't you the "carrot juice cures cancer" guy

[Futue te Ipsum]

as long as i get my money back at the end of the year if i don't visit the hospital. and homeless people and such should not get coverage.Homeless people are quite useful, actually, for recently graduated doctors.

It's ethical, honest :p
and private clinics better still be legal.They will be. At least, they are here.

[gregulus]

Aren't you the "carrot juice cures cancer" guy

yes. he's that guy.

i'm going to try and find that thread.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I don't want to pay for some one else health care.

sums up my stance in so many words.

[italic zero]

That's the only way any system of health care, public or private, could conceivably work.

[ringworm]

I don't want to pay for some one else health care.

sums up my stance in so many words.

well, besides the fact that we already do (outrageously high premiums for everyone else) I'm with ya :)

[spitfirejunky]

Aren't you the "carrot juice cures cancer" guy

Had a feeling someone was gonna bring up his weak grasp of biology.

[The Transporter 2]

people should get jobs that provide healthcare. why is that so hard?

[Shell]

idk our government already has a ton of programs it can't operate effectively

I don't really want them telling me what I can/can't do with my own health. :(

Also, I haven't read every detail of the thread, but I noticed TS didn't mention anything about frivilous lawsuits. Even nurses have to have malpractice insurance to protect themselves from being sued.

[Permanent Solution]

people should get jobs that provide healthcare. why is that so hard?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/15/BUG8OENLE61.DTL
Employer-sponsored health insurance is becoming scarcer and more expensive.

Premiums for job-based health insurance rose 9.2 percent on average nationwide in 2005, about three times the general rate of inflation, according to the annual health coverage survey of the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. Nonetheless, that increase marked the first year since 2000 in which the increase was less than 10 percent.

Meanwhile, the percentage of businesses offering health benefits to employees dropped to 60 percent in 2005, down from 69 percent in 2000.

The report, considered an authoritative study on health coverage in the United States, found little reason to celebrate the return to single-digit health insurance premium increases. It stressed that there has been no let-up in the trend of fast-rising costs, making health care increasingly unaffordable for both employers and workers.

[DBoons Ghost]

people should get jobs that provide healthcare. why is that so hard?

The majority of people who lack the healthcare they need are single moms and the elderly. Single moms usually get part time jobs if even because they baby's daddy is almost always a bum loser degenerate who was cool enough to bang silly but not to marry. Cash business slingin' dope usually carries no bennies. Medicaid only covers so much but that's what most people use.

A lot of people still prefer to not carry healthcare insurance at all, as they view it as they would car insurance. You don't get the money back for being a good driver, same as paying all that money into a system when you're not sick is stupid. You pay cash for doctors. At one time, that's how it was. Over time, inflation and such, and new and more expensive means of procedures and before you know it, one night in a hospital is 4000 bucks and each pill is 120 bucks a pill because Merck and Pfizer can gauge every penny they can from you because their shareholders don't wanna reinvest in a company in the red.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yeah PS posted sense as well.

Just because you get a good job even, doesn't mean you're guarenteed coverage.

It's out of control. The morons who choose to abstain eventually get drunk and get smashed by a car and end up staying in the hospital for a week and when they get out they get billed and they can't pay that bill so they file bankruptcy and we all suffer for that one dude not having health insurance.

[Permanent Solution]

My article was 2 years out of date too, I'm pretty sure currently it's only about half of businesses offer health insurance, and it's mostly the big ones. Thus, anyone who works better in a smaller business organization must get screwed somehow.

[DBoons Ghost]

My article was 2 years out of date too, I'm pretty sure currently it's only about half of businesses offer health insurance, and it's mostly the big ones. Thus, anyone who works better in a smaller business organization must get screwed somehow.

We're all getting screwed and we know how. We're just powerless to stop it.

Even the candidates are still planning on sucking the special interests dicks. Edwards was the only one who had the words "diet" and "excersize" in his plan. Everyone else will continue to allow the FDA and Drug Companies to monopolize the public and make more pills that cure one thing and cause 10 others that they can treat with yet another pill that costs 3 cents to make but 40 dollars to ingest.

They want us to keep supporting them. They are public companies. Our ills are their profit. There is no way out.

It all hit me many years ago when I was in Saint Marten. I went into a pharmacy and there was one brand. The governments. There wasn't 60 different medicines all claiming to do the nothing they all end up doing. There was one antihistamine and it worked. Like a charm. One sinus pill. One headache pill. They worked.

We're not going to solve this overnight.

[beso negro]

Aren't you the "carrot juice cures cancer" guy

kind of but thats a different thread.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It probably obscures your notions of what does and does not warrant an expensive medical procedure.

[chronopops]

It probably obscures your notions of what does and does not warrant an expensive medical procedure.

red red red to the herring.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Actually it's pretty relevant considering the subject and all.

[gregulus]

It probably obscures your notions of what does and does not warrant an expensive medical procedure.

everything not involving carrot juice is too expensive, obviously.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I wonder what the C in CAT Scan stands for.

[Independent_CA]

A bunch of Europeans should move over here to America, set up a society, and show us how it's done!

Oh wait...

[ringworm]

people should get jobs that provide healthcare. why is that so hard?

i saw a recent show where the question rose, "Why is health care tied so strongly to employment?"

Why have we become so entangled that coverage can only be provided by an employer at a reasonable rate? People switch jobs more frequently these days, so why not step away from the standard that you must be full time employed to get reduced premium care?

I work in one state, while my employer is based in another, so sometimes providers arent covered in my plan simply because my plan isnt even regionaly close to where I live. It would still be the same insurance, just obtained differently, and it would seem like some costs could be saved because I wouldnt be switching carriers every few years.

[McP3000]

im basically against employer given health insurance.

purchasing insurance would lower if it was on an individual level.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why?

[McP3000]

Why?
Because people would have to go and buy their own insurance, instead of being given an already laid out plan.

do i honestly have to explain this to you?

[guitrguy]

yes because it makes no sense.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Because people would have to go and buy their own insurance, instead of being given an already laid out plan.

do i honestly have to explain this to you?
I don't know how employers work out insurance plans, so yes. Surely buying insurance en masse is more efficient than buying specific plans? The concept of insurance in general relies on the pooling of risk.

[ringworm]

Surely buying insurance en masse is more efficient than buying specific plans?
how much more en masse could you get then the general population itself you were providing to?

by reducing yet another middle man that only passes the costs downward, it isnt hard to see that prices may decline? Call me crazy, wouldnt it also be applicable that the products made by each company could reduce in price since that huge product didnt have to be offered to its employees? Maybe even higher wages in turn?7

[Dave de Sylvia]

how much more en masse could you get then the general population itself you were providing to?
But the population doesn't have its own lobbying body.

by reducing yet another middle man that only passes the costs downward, it isnt hard to see that prices may decline?
What costs? It seems the bureaucracy would be considerably reduced.

Call me crazy, wouldnt it also be applicable that the products made by each company could reduce in price since that huge product didnt have to be offered to its employees? Maybe even higher wages in turn?
That would be contingent upon personal insurance being cheaper than collective insurance.

[ringworm]

But the population doesn't have its own lobbying body.


What costs? It seems the bureaucracy would be considerably reduced.


That would be contingent upon personal insurance being cheaper than collective insurance.

ok, i think i am being patronized or playfully trolled :)

[guitrguy]

When profit is introduced into insurance it has proven to hurt the consumer more times than it helps.

[Dave de Sylvia]

ok, i think i am being patronized or playfully trolled :)
No, I'm making genuine points.

A group bargaining collectively have more power to demand low prices than each individual collectively doing so. And private health insurance is renowned for the mass of bureaucracy involved.

[ringworm]

A group bargaining collectively have more power to demand low prices than each individual collectively doing so.
well, thats what I mean, but getting everyone to collectively demand what we want is not exactly an easy concept with the little to no understanding or involvement that most americans have

most people dont even know how much a routine visits cost to the doctor, which is another problem, since we dont really pay the bill like at the supermarket, we dont care