General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2207525

    What should we do with the uninsured?

    Locked

    by av . ·

    I think this was a good question that Wolf Blitzer posed to Ron Paul on the CNN Tea Party Republican debates of Sept. 12, 2011.

    Its a tough issue, but very relevant to our times. I’m surprised at the crowd enthusiasm to let the guy die because he didn’t take personal responsibility for himself. I don’t want to pay for the uninsured either, but what should really be done if people won’t take personal responsibility for their own health insurance? 50 million people are uninsured in this country. Charity can’t handle that.

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/September/14/census-data.aspx

    AV

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2808972

      Off with their heads!

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Let them eat cake!

      A better question is ‘How do we de-industrialize the medical and pharmaceutical industries?’

      • #2808970

        I wish I knew

        by av . ·

        In reply to Off with their heads!

        We really need affordable healthcare in this country that isn’t tied to employers. Why can’t I shop for a good deal on healthcare just like I buy everything else?

        AV

        • #2808967

          I wish I knew, too.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to I wish I knew

          What I do know, is that it appears to me that profit is the driving force behind health care, not caring for people. It takes the latter for health care to be effective. How to take us back in time without losing the advantage technology affords? Another big question.

          Another thing I think, fear of death seems to drive (most) consumers of health care. This gives the edge to the profiteer. Fear of anything is a horrid ‘goad’, but fear of death, the inescapable, is downright ludicrous. Somewhere along the line, this nation became a nation of the fearful. That’s our downfall, in all directions. Fear is a killer.

        • #2808965

          Everyone needs healthcare

          by av . ·

          In reply to I wish I knew, too.

          I think you’re right that health care companies put profit over people. There is no caring anymore. What happened to us as a people that we don’t care about one another anymore? Its now all big business. Maybe there are too many of us where if a few get sick and die off it doesn’t matter.

          I think the fear of death has always driven most people to try to plan for health issues in some way. Everyone thinks about that sometime, but why isn’t there an affordable option for the masses to have health care that would give you some security? Maybe health care companies should reconsider why they are in business. They can make a profit, but they have to be about people first.

          AV

        • #2808966

          Because

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I wish I knew

          There is no way you can “buy” commitment to your own cause. You get off your ass and do it yourself, beginning with the who, what, where, when, why, and how of illness and injury for your own self.

          That’s right. You.
          .

        • #2808951

          Sorry to burst your bubble, man.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Because

          Re: Necessary x Sufficient -> Doctors get sick and die too. :p

        • #2876840

          Contriteness

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Sorry to burst your bubble, man.

          No need. Besides, your needle is bent to no effect upon what is not a bubble.

        • #2876837

          There is no needle

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Contriteness

          it is only the bends.

        • #2808954

          Bring in a consultant to do the dirty work…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I wish I knew

          May I recommend Hugo Chavez?
          Just tell him you’ll have the CIA stop giving him cancer if he succeeds.

        • #2876920

          Side note: employer provided health benefits

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I wish I knew

          started during WW2. With a government imposed wage freeze on, employers who wanted top talent had to provide something to differentiate themselves from others also hiring. Health benefits weren’t covered under the wage freeze, so subsidizing medical care indirectly increased income.

        • #2876654

          And thus

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Side note: employer provided health benefits

          was “indirectly” flouting the imposed wage freeze…

        • #2876645

          Oh, certainly.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to And thus

          There’s ways around almost everything, especially inconvenient mandates to do or not do something.

    • #2808971
      Avatar photo

      So was it even possible for this person to buy Health Insurance?

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Probably more important is what’s wrong with the system when Health Insurance is beyond the cost of so many?

      Col

      • #2808968

        That is really the problem, it costs too much

        by av . ·

        In reply to So was it even possible for this person to buy Health Insurance?

        Also part of the problem is that the rest of us pay for those that can’t or won’t pay into the system. In the US, if you are a legal taxpayer, you are subsidizing those that don’t pay into the system. Its not acceptable and not sustainable anymore.

        AV

        • #2808962
          Avatar photo

          Someone else said it a while ago

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to That is really the problem, it costs too much

          The US Society has degenerated to a Ferengi type Society where everyone expects to be screwed and the sole aim of the masses is to rise to the top where they get to screw everyone else.

          That seems to have started when the Greed is Good Crap started and is something I find unfathomable. 😉

          Col

        • #2808959

          Stars

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Someone else said it a while ago

          Once your eyes have cleared of them, isn’t that how married life proceeds?
          .

        • #2808953

          Santee

          by oh smeg ·

          In reply to Stars

          It’s full of Stars

          OH what shall I do now. :0

        • #2876639

          Like the light at the end of the tunnel.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Stars

          May be attached to an oncoming train 🙂

        • #2808873

          Col, their problem is in the nickels and cents…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Someone else said it a while ago

          It’s a stamp which reads “In God we trust”.
          First of all… talk about a crutch.
          Second of all, it is implied, “Only … “

        • #2808868

          Bugphuque.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Col, their problem is in the nickels and cents…

          Though you’re partially correct. Moolah is the issue.

        • #2876945

          Mixing God with Moolah

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Bugphuque.

          doesn’t aggravate it?
          Now I know that “take the name in vain” refers to the Name.
          But invoking God on a nickel? Seriously, is that a good idea?
          To say nothing of larger units of currency.

          A theologist might suggest it’s trying to force God to underwrite the value of said currency… lest He betray that Trust…
          Same with it being a crutch, what does the trust i God mean when printed on the money (yeah, I know it’s the Motto, but context matters)… All power to the free markets, coz it serves the Will of God? That’s the crutch. I believe there was a reason for both “give unto the emperor” and the kicking out of the merchants from the temple. Money is anathema to God.

      • #2876651

        expectations

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to So was it even possible for this person to buy Health Insurance?

        of perfect outcome.

      • #2899875

        Good Point

        by thechas ·

        In reply to So was it even possible for this person to buy Health Insurance?

        From my experience, in order to be able to buy an individual health insurance policy in the US, you need to be healthy enough to not need health insurance. Any hint of a preexisting condition and the mainstream health insurance plans will not even quote a policy for you.

        The last time I was between jobs, the only viable insurance option for me was COBRA coverage from my prior employer. The cost for the COBRA coverage was nearly half of my unemployment income!

        In the US, on a very real level if you do not have employer sponsored group coverage, you either cannot get or cannot afford health insurance.

        Notice my use of the word “sponsored”. Even if you pay 100% of the cost of your health insurance it is still significantly easier and less expensive to get employer sponsored group coverage then it is to get an individual policy.

        Chas

        • #2899873

          Smacks of

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Good Point

          No valid existence outside a Communist work-unit.

        • #2899706

          Your certificate has expired

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Smacks of

          come back when your employer has validated your existence.

    • #2808955

      Can everybody afford to?

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      If the choice is between feeding the young and putting money into a non-refundable savings towards potential harm, then it’s a matter of instinct of the bonus pater familias to do the former.

      Insurance is a racket, you all know that – too many hands getting a cut of the pie – that makes it OK for “optional” or “frivolous” expenses, but not for basic need expenses.
      A more honest approach would be to make it a tax, then let people choose their service provider – best of both worlds.

      Bring on the flames, but you know I’m right :p

      • #2808952

        You Commie

        by oh smeg ·

        In reply to Can everybody afford to?

        Next you’ll be suggesting that Public Health is a [b]Good Thing.[/b]

        You obviously know no better so all I can say is

        [b]Forgive him Father he knows not what he says. Even if it is correct it’s just so wrong.[/b] 😉

        Col

        • #2808950

          You haven’t been to Church in a while have you?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You Commie

          The Litany goes : [b]Dear GOD, please send a PATRIOT to shoot that guy dead – who, being naughty in thy face, shall snuff it! Thank you very much, and please make Palin the PReSiDeNT of the USA[/b]

          I’ll just add that I’ll go along with that last request as long as it’s the Michael, and not the Sarah!

        • #2808931
          Avatar photo

          Funny you should say that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to You haven’t been to Church in a while have you?

          But the Radical Far out Comments that I am currently hearing from some in the US are exactly the same thing that allowed the Father to rise to power in Germany prior to the early 1930’s.

          The more scared and insecure that people get the more they tend to accept extreme political Ideals which they otherwise wouldn???t have a bar of. If nothing else it just goes to show how wrong Democracy actually is where out of Fear and Insecurity the Masses will Vote for the one who tries to [b]Out Extreme the Other.[/b]

          Could be why I don’t like Politicians at all as they sink to the lowest common dominator well actually race to it when times get tough and then it takes a lot to repair all of the damage that they did when in power.

          However on the Up Side after 9-11 it now appears that GWB is unable to do any international Travel without running the risk of being arrested as a War Criminal. While he stays in the US he can not be touched as the US is not a signatory to the International War Crimes Tribunal but the moment that he moves to visit any country who is he’s surspectacle to arrest.

          Very much reminds me of a person I found in the Philippines who had suffered a Burst Appendix and when i took them to the Local Hospital they where asked who was going to pay for the treatment to fix them. When they replied that they or their family didn’t have enough money they where asked to leave the meat works so that they didn’t cause a mess there which had to be paid to be cleaned up. In other words they where told to go home and die in agony and it’s not our problem.

          Being a Good Catholic they where not willing to practice any form of Birth Control but found it perfectly acceptable to die for the want of a lousy $500.00 AU because they didn’t have the money to pay for the treatment. Even then that $500.00 was for treatment that I would expect in AU not what they where expecting there. I personally find that Offensive and just plain Wrong.

          When any country devalues any human life they can not be considered as Civilized or an Advanced Country.

          Col

        • #2808916

          How else would they compensate for the overproduction of people

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Funny you should say that

          brought on by lack of best practices in contraception… if not by callously letting grown up people and family providers die, so foetuses can live, unwanted and uncared for…
          The Catholic God must like human misery, eh?

        • #2808867

          Thank God

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to How else would they compensate for the overproduction of people

          you added that qualifier…

        • #2876946

          Oh I don’t blame God.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Thank God

          God didn’t write the Bible, after all.
          And certainly didn’t instigate the church.
          Nor tell the church to start kowtowing to the powerful and sell out the meek, who being destined to “inherit” should be thankful for the indignities heaped upon them by their betters and the pharisees blessing them.

          😀

        • #2876638

          My simple prayer

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You haven’t been to Church in a while have you?

          is that everybody get exactly what they deserve. AMEN!

        • #2899867

          Good.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to My simple prayer

          Mine is that everybody get what they need, to find what they’re missing, so they can start searching for that, instead of the pointless crap they’ve let themselves become preoccupied with.

    • #2808933

      "That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks" – Ron Paul

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      THAT is what the crowd applauded, not a suggestion to let the hypothetical guy die. Wolf Blitzer made the assertion of letting the guy die, not Ron Paul. And Ron Paul, with his answer, dismissed Blitzer’s assertion that under a system of individual freedom and responsibility – versus welfareism and socialism – that the guy would go uncared for. He recalled the days in the early 1960s – before government got into the medical delivery business – when hospitals did not turn people away, but local churches, friends, other people, etc. took care of it.

      And just look at how the whole vocabulary regarding the insurance product has changed. Today, what’s being sold is called [i]”health care”[/i] insurance. A decade or two ago, it was called [i]”medical insurance”[/i]. In the 1960s and earlier, it was called [i]”hospitalization insurance”[/i], and absolutely everything else (outside of being hospitalized) was paid for out-of-pocket by the medical consumer. When my mother took me to the doctor when I was a kid, the first question that was asked was, [i]”What seems to be the problem?”[/i] Today it’s, [i]”Who’s your insurance carrier and what’s your policy number?”[/i] That’s crazy!

      And after the doctor treated whatever ailed me, she paid the bill. If she was a bit short in the cash department, the doctor would work with her, perhaps offering a discount or even a waived bill for one of his best customers (we had a lot of kids in our family). I actually know another such large family, who, upon having their 13th kid, had both the doctor and the hospital tell them, [i]”We offer a Baker’s Dozen. The 13th one is free.”[/i] This kind of thing is unheard of today, because everybody expects somebody else – either insurance or government – to pay for it.

      Why do you think so many hospitals are named [i]Saint Something or Other[/i]? Because they were created and supported by local churches and charities to help those who could not afford it. People got cared for, and no one was turned away and left to die on the street. This notion that people will be dropping dead all over the place if government got out of the medical delivery business is ludicrous. And in my opinion, something just as ludicrous is any suggestion that government and medical delivery should even be used in the same sentence.

      People do not NEED insurance. They never NEED insurance. What they NEED, from time to time, is medical care; insurance is only a broker that pays for it. But the insurance industry and government have taken over the medical delivery business, and together have forced their product – and their will – onto the American consumer. People pay upwards of $500 per month for medical insurance (called health care insurance today). But I would guess that 95 percent of the people, 95 percent of time, NEVER consume $6,000 per year in medical goods or services. Not even close.

      When, and under what system of government, did the medical delivery system work best? I have to think it was in the early 1960s, late 1950s – the era Ron Paul illustrated – when people willingly took responsibility for their own healthy (or unhealthy) lives and paid for the majority of their medical care out of their own pocket, not even thinking about insurance until some catastrophic event occurred. When the business of government was governing, not minding everybody else’s business; when the business of the medical care industry was delivering medical care, not managing insurance payments while being dictated to by insurance companies; when the individual consumer was the customer of medical goods and services, not insurance companies (or government); when the individual consumer dictated, not the insurance companies (or government); and when the business of insurance companies was to make their product available to the individual consumer for those things that might turn catastrophic. And at that time, the best and most affordable medical care in all the world could be found in North America, not behind the Iron Curtain or in the People’s Republic of [i]Wherever[/i], where the business of government was minding the business of every business and every person in their domain.

      So to answer your initial question, [i]”What should we[/i] (assuming you mean the collective “we” by way of some federal government meddling program) [i]do with the uninsured?”[/i] The answer: Nothing; absolutely nothing.

      Disclaimer: While I support and agree with many of Ron Paul’s policy positions, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. (Although I would be if hell froze over and he won the Republican Party nomination, becoming the candidate running against the absolute disaster we call Barack Obama.)

      • #2808917

        The pre-1960’s times aren’t coming back, though.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to "That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks" – Ron Paul

        You do realize that, don’t you?
        If all these charities were equipped and willing to do the job, nothing is stopping them now, either.
        And nothing is stopping Republicans from funding those charities, either.
        If they really have a case, then I suggest they show it, by putting their money where their blab is.

        • #2808909

          You mean…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to The pre-1960’s times aren’t coming back, though.

          Democrats don’t you? They’re the ones who want free healthcare for everyone. Why don’t THEY step up to the plate and pay for?

        • #2808895

          Because they want it to be paid for with taxes.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You mean…

          The republicans are the ones claiming charities can do it, but they ought to show that it’s liable before expecting people to go along with it.

        • #2808886

          Well

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Because they want it to be paid for with taxes.

          it’s been documented that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, so “When are they going to pay their fair share?”. Charities would be able to do much more if it wasn’t for those evil greedy Democrats.

        • #2808878

          That’s the price of Principles…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Well

          you get to fork over the green.
          Even if others don’t.
          Because you have Principles.

          So fork it over, show that it works.

          That’s what it means to put one’s money where one’s blab is.
          As opposed to putting one’s money where someone else’s blab is.

        • #2808870

          Ahh!

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          So you’re only interested in telling conservatives how to spend their money. That explains everything.

        • #2808869

          No. I want the crooked bastards to put their money where their blab is.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          Is it really so hard to read that sentence?
          They claim that charities could and should do what tax money is now paying for.
          They – need – to – back – up – that – pathetic – see-through – lie – before – expecting – anyone – to -believe – that.
          Like hell the corporate goons will pay to charities that help the poor live a reasonably dignified life.
          They’ll pay to for-profit “charities” run by the wives of business partners, just so they can mingle with fellow lizards, support institutions that spread their vile propaganda, and get a tax cut out of it as well. And then spout the statistics about how they give more to “charity”.

          Charity my ass.

        • #2876948

          The poor

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          You probably wring your hands over them more than they do over themselves.

          I wonder why.

        • #2876947

          Well the answer to that one is obvious

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          they have better things to do than wring their hands.

          Sometimes those better things turn out to be rather detrimental to the wellbeing of those with more than they. A revolution is simply the realization by the many, that they are in fact many, and the few are not.
          Doesn’t take a lot of maths, that.

          And revolutions are wasteful, especially since no better plan has been developed, it will just be more of the same.

          But I am not wringing my hands, just calling BS where I see it.
          And I do. I see BS everywhere.

        • #2876928

          Good!

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          Now that you’ve verified that that was exactly what you meant, lets talk taxes. The liberals want higher taxes. Using your logic, they should put their money where their blab is and pay more taxes.

          Let’s start with the Obama supporters. They should start paying 50% of their gross income to the Government. After all, it’s the only way to pay down the debt and provide all those great Government services.

          Naturally, there will be some of those supporters who don’t work. They will be given 50% less of their Government assistance. This won’t help with increasing the tax income but will take some of the burden off of the Government’s obligation to the poor and needy.

          And they needn’t worry, I’m sure the Government will return them back to their current tax rate as soon as this crisis is over. Who knows, maybe they’ll even get a refund for being such responsible citizens.

        • #2876896

          Agreed.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          Of course, you’re the one who’ll have to make them pay it, since I’m sitting over here in a different country. But it sounds good. If everybody pays for the things what are coming out of their mouthes, I’m sure you’ll get a much quieter political space very soon. Which might leave room for deliberation, rather than knee-jerky.

        • #2876894

          It’ll have to wait…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          until Monday, I’m swamped right now. 😉

          Since it’s the weekend for you, go have a beer at the fortress for me.

        • #2876848

          Ok… only one?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          Just kidding, I’ll make that a w00t beer.
          Weekends are nice.

        • #2876825

          BS is everywhere

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          because everything that breathes, shits.

        • #2876802

          Two kinds of BS…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to That’s the price of Principles…

          the kind that comes out the rectum of a male bovine…
          and the one that accompanies that aforementioned breathing of a certain species of monkey.

        • #2808906

          Given

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to The pre-1960’s times aren’t coming back, though.

          What stalks the world, I would not be so cavalier about reversion to the mean of nasty, brutish, and short.

        • #2808894

          Ok I was being imprecise:

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Given

          “The post-iron age but pre-1960’s eras aren’t coming back…”
          We can do total regression. Just vote Not-the-Michael into the Oral Orifice.

          You’ve changed your tune, perhaps. Can’t be that you care what other people might think, can it? Or is Rick someone you know? If the latter, that’s your problem, not mine. Either way, it is interesting, nothing more.

      • #2808912

        A clarification on one point about health care in the 1950s-1960s

        by robo_dev ·

        In reply to "That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks" – Ron Paul

        I think it’s a nostalgic myth that people took more responsibility and paid out of pocket out of some noble set of ethical and moral superiority.

        In the 1950s and 1960s, people smoked more, ate more fatty foods, and just died. Look at the infant mortality rate in the US> it was 20 per 1000 live births (for under 28 days) in 1950 and today it’s less than 5.

        If you had a heart attack in 1950 or 1960, you died. Today the survival rate is pretty good. Chances are the doctor who looked at your heart did so while smoking a cigarette, and had a big fatty steak and fries for lunch.

        Also, consider that the hospital bill for a birth in the 1960s cost less than a stay at a hotel today, while today a hospital stay can cost more than an automobile.

        Therefore it was no big deal for my father to pay the $73 medical bill for when I was born in the 1960s, but more recently when I was treated for a suspected stroke, the bill was around $18,000 USD. (my insurance paid all but around $1000). There is no amount of ‘sense of personal responsibility’ that is going to push me to fork out $18,000 versus relying on insurance.

        The ‘good old days’ were not better, only cheaper.

        With respect to the uninsured, there are two big issues.

        The simple one is for emergency care: most hospitals just do it, and eat the cost.

        The more complex and morally difficult question involves long term illness.

        If a person has insurance, and has something nasty like throat cancer, there are a full array of treatment services available to them, with the potential for extending their life remarkably, giving a parent the chance to see their kids grow up, and potentially lead a fairly long life.

        For the uninsured, you can treat the cancer symptoms, not the cause. You cannot treat cancer in the emergency room, and the services of an oncologist as well as chemotherapy would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands out of pocket. Beyond the impossibility of paying for the service, there will be delays in treatment that could be fatal. Overall it’s a death sentence.

        • #2808907

          You have to ask yourself why…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to A clarification on one point about health care in the 1950s-1960s

          the hospitals charged $18,000 but accepted just a small portion of it. If the treatment was REALLY worth $18,000, they’d have to charge that or go broke. But they charge it, accept less than half for the insurance “acceptable charge” and still make money.

          Get insurance companies out of the mix, let hospitals charge fair rates and everyone benefits.

          Of course, that would mean stopping insurance companies from buying politician’s votes, so it will never happen.

        • #2808893

          Worth and cost are not the same…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You have to ask yourself why…

          Medical treatment without which you’ll certainly die? Priceless… but that doesn’t mean you should accept hospitals set the price tag much higher than cost plus shareholder dividend (in this climate 5% is good enough for shareholders).

        • #2808866

          Everyone

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Worth and cost are not the same…

          most certainly dies. Healthcare or no…

        • #2876944

          Ha!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Everyone

          Good one.
          And for that I do blame God.
          Or laud.
          Puts us in our place.

        • #2808903

          The cost of medical care

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A clarification on one point about health care in the 1950s-1960s

          If you look at every aspect of what’s provided in the process of delivering medical goods and services, and break it down into separate components, and then consider what the cost of each component should be, there’s no way it should cost as much as it should.

          Providing an aspirin for $20, for example, something that should cost only twenty five cents. Paying many thousands of dollars for an hour of a surgeon’s time, something that could be paid on a per hour basis; a surgeon who makes 500k a year breaks down to only about $250 per hour; why does he/she bill $2,500? The same for nurses and attendants. The same for a hotel room – I mean a hospital room. What things are provided in a hospital room for an overnight stay that aren’t provided at a $100 per night hotel? Monitoring equipment, and such, but nothing that should increase the cost of a $100 room to $1,000 or more for just the room for an overnight stay in a hospital.

          It would be interesting to see some studies of a breakdown of what’s provided and what it should reasonably cost, and compare it to what it actually does cost.

          The way the debate goes today is that receiving medical care is so expensive that nobody can afford it without insurance. But I submit to you that one of the major reasons (as well as other reasons) that led to the high cost of medical care in the first place was the absorbing of the insurance product into the medical industry. It’s like a circular cause and effect.

          It could easily be argued that the proliferation of insurance into the delivery of ALL medical care (instead of using it for only major events) is what makes receiving medical care more expensive. And it’s insanity trying to fix a problem by providing even more of the very thing that caused it to be more expensive in the first place.

          And then there’s the mentality that there’s a cure for death. But that’s an argument for another time.

        • #2808892

          It’s definitely the insurance companies causing the crazy prices

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The cost of medical care

          After all Insurance is a protection racket dressed up as a savings account.
          The insurance companies get their own back, first by the statistical overpricing on the policies, and then by stock ownership in hospitals.
          They can squeeze money out of a rock, and you know it.

          It’s what happens when a crucial service is allowed to remain without public competition. Like toll road pricing if there were no public roads.
          Crucial services cannot be cast to the wolves. It will always backfire.

          By all means allow private competition, but keep basic public interests covered via public means. Monopolistic profiteering strangles the economy.

        • #2808889

          Well

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to The cost of medical care

          I couldn’t find in a few minutes anything more recent but this study goes into some very high level of detail about administration costs in Healthcare:
          http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

          In 1999, Health administration costs in the US were $1059 per capita versus $307 per capita in Canada, or 31% of the total healthcare costs in the US versus 16.7% in Canada.

          Much of that difference is about billing – in Canada a doctor bills the government, in the US a doctor bills any number of insurance companies. Canada also doesn’t have much to spend in the way of healthcare marketing(we do have supplemental insurance for things like dental etc, so the number isn’t zero).

          The gap in the doctor’s labour cost could be about his overhead, the amount of administration required to get his bills paid, plus the cost of malpractise insurance is surely higher in the US than here.

          When we had an MRI gap in my province, I had an interesting discussion with some policymakers about why private clinics would be cheaper(though the government resisted them). In a private clinic, with no unions, you can run an MRI 24 hours a day and pay the same wage to the all technicians. In a hospital, you will pay more labor costs for running the MRI 24 hours a day because the healthcare workers union demands shift premiums for the night shift workers.

          I’m sure we are just scratching the tip of the iceburg.

        • #2808885

          Scanners are weird in other ways too…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Well

          I once heard that making a CAT-scan cost (then) 1500$… and that’s for just one patient getting one scan.
          I couldn’t get a good answer on how they broke down that cost – it’s unlikely to be all power consumption or labor costs though.
          Might have been cost of purchase divided by expected usage lifespan, but that would be rather odd too.

        • #2899724

          Health Care is a Bargain

          by thechas ·

          In reply to The cost of medical care

          While I don’t like the shock of the bill any more than anyone else, on a very real level, the cost of health care is a bargain.

          When I compare the $25 it cost for a physical 30 years ago with the $125 by doctor’s office charges the insurance company, that number is pretty close to the rate of inflation.

          Take a closer look at your hotel versus hospital example.
          Compare the cost of the staff and facility.
          For a 100 unit hotel, you might have 2 people on staff at any time, and a cleaning crew of up to 8 people. Outside of the hotel manager, I doubt that any of them make over $35,000 a year from their hotel job.

          Now look at any level of critical care unit at a hospital. Direct staff is more like 1 person for every 10 patients. Along with 24/7 maintenance, laundry, cleaning, food service and other support staff. Most of the hospital staff earns over $40,000 a year.

          Your hotel does not have an oxygen delivery system to every room. Nor do most have a large backup generator for power. Most of the medical equipment is fairly expensive to purchase and maintain too.

          As to the $25 aspirin. It cost the same to dispense 1 aspirin as it does to dispense any other medication. It is the individual handling and full documentation of every medication handled by the hospital pharmacy that makes the cost look high. Your hospital pharmacy does not have the benefit of the scale of volume that your local pharmacy does. The hospital pharmacist also likely earns more than your local pharmacist. Not just because he or she works in a hospital, but because their work requires a higher level of skill and knowledge.

          There are some medications where the same dosage can be dispensed from the pharmacy as is available over the counter. Compare the cost to have your local pharmacist dispense say Zertec versus what you can buy the generic version for.

          Of course, your hotel does not have near the cost for liability insurance. Nor, does it process anywhere near the same level of paperwork to track your stay as your hospital does.

          When you consider how many people you are paying to take care of you at the hospital, the cost does not seam so bad.

          Finally, as I work with an ever aging group of people, more and more of us are using more medical services than we could afford without the benefit of our health insurance. I’ve lost track of the number of people at work who have had knee replacements and other major procedures. One manager had at least 6 ambulance rides last year. So yes, most of the people I work with believe that the cost of insurance is worth the benefit.

          Chas

      • #2876942

        Doing nothing is not an option

        by av . ·

        In reply to "That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks" – Ron Paul

        The crowd applauded “Thats what freedom is all about, taking your own risks”, but they were largely silent when it meant that the person would die. I think most of them never really thought people could actually die as a result of personal responsibility. Still, there were a couple of people that were willing to go that far.

        I remember the olden days of medical care. Thanks for that look back because I don’t think people today really understand that the system worked back then or how we got to the debacle it is today. Healthcare back then definitely wasn’t tied up in the big, bureaucratic BS that we have today.

        More on your other comments later.

        AV

        Edit: leftover sentence

        • #2876937

          Re: but they were largely silent when it meant that the person would die.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Doing nothing is not an option

          It was a hypothetical set-up. Ron Paul challenged that premise, but you apparently buy into the hypothetical set-up.

          Show me a time when people in America were allowed to die in the streets – a picture Wolf Blitzer and his Democrat accomplices were trying to paint.

          Why do you buy into that crap?

        • #2876822

          It was a fair question, not a set-up

          by av . ·

          In reply to Re: but they were largely silent when it meant that the person would die.

          Ron Paul’s solution might have worked years ago, but not now. Maybe the time when people die in the streets hasn’t happened yet, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future.

          I think Wolf Blitzer painted a worst case scenario, but things like that do happen, so it is a valid question. Ron Paul’s message is, if you can’t pay for health insurance and charity and family can’t sustain you, you’re a goner. I get it.

          AV

    • #2808905

      Deleted

      by slayer_ ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Deleted

    • #2808890

      Just kill me.

      by seanferd ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Kill me now. Without the benefit of any damn socialist death panel. :^0

      Not that I’ve ever asked for any sort of publicly supported healthcare, though. Nor will I. Can’t afford it, and I don’t expect anyone to afford it for me. But there are plenty of people who need services, and I’m not averse to a small portion of my taxes going towards healthcare in the social contract of which I am a member by being a citizen of this country. You have your own private insurance? You’re paying for other people’s healthcare anyway, or they are paying for yours. This is how insurance works.

      Now, if you stop letting the greater healthcare industry charge whatever the hell they want for products and services, insurance wouldn’t be a big deal. But we don’t interfere with oligopoly/monopoly industries in our fair capitalist system, because that would be evil.

      To take a different angle, if we stopped supporting the ridiculous expeditions and toy-collecting of our war-machine and security theater operations and horrifically bad intelligence outfits, we wouldn’t have such budget issues and strains on our economy.

      Or, if corporate America would give jobs to Americans and pay their damn taxes, and if people would stop thinking for half a second that the only kind of economy is a growth economy, things wouldn’t be so bad either.

      But on just the healthcare angle, even in present conditions, insurance for preventative medicine or maintaining wellness is by far cheaper than addressing life-threatening emergency issues that could have been easily avoided.

      • #2808883

        And a patched up worker is a still-open-to-exploitation worker…

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Just kill me.

        And we know how our corporate overlords like us to be open to exploitation.

      • #2808877

        Re: the social contract of which I am a member by being a citizen

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Just kill me.

        You said, [i]”I’m not averse to a small portion of my taxes going towards healthcare in the social contract of which I am a member by being a citizen of this country.”[/i]

        Where can I find a copy of that contract so I can review all the rules and obligations?

    • #2808879

      The first question asked should be: (And an analogy)

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Your question, [i]”What should we do with the uninsured?”[/i] makes the assumption (whether you intended to or not) that the collective [i]”we”[/i] are somehow responsible for the collective [i]”uninsured”[/i]

      But the first question that should be asked is this: Is receiving medical care an individual responsibility or a collective one?

      Moreover, the debate has shifted from one of providing medical care to people who need it but can’t afford it, to one of providing insurance coverage to those who need it (or not) and can’t (or maybe can) afford it. Those are two different products: medical and insurance.

      There are those who might say that receiving medical care is necessary for life itself (or something like that), and should therefore be a collective effort. Well, so is food. Food is also necessary to sustain life. We should therefore all have food insurance.

      Imagine, just for a moment, if we had this debate about food insurance and food purchases instead of medical insurance and medical purchases. What if all our food purchases were made like our current medical purchases are made? What would that look like? And what would it look like after about 70 years of the food insurance industry creeping deeper and deeper into individual food choices to the point of controlling many aspects of it?

      But we need food insurance, people would say, because food is so expensive. Heck, a simple load of bread costs fifty dollars! That’s crazy! And my food insurance premiums keep going up. Food insurance now costs upwards of $500 per month for a family of three! And there are deductibles and co-pays on top of that! We need someone to do something about this.

      Then the question would be, [i]”What should we do with those who don’t have food insurance?”[/i]

      • #2876935

        First of all… I agree about cutting Insurance out of it.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to The first question asked should be: (And an analogy)

        Secondly, there is a question of scale. As it is, food doesn’t cost all that much, if it did, then you certainly would have to debate it, since people who can’t afford food most certainly will then take it, unpaid for. What then? Cut off people’s hands for stealing a loaf of bread to feed the kids for one more day? But even then, I agree with you that the solution would not be insurance.

        As it is now, medical expenses have an unfortunate tendency to strike people unexpectedly. They also have an even more unfortunate tendency to strike when people have a greatly reduced earning capacity (being, as they are, in need of medical treatment). This makes it worthy of a communal, solidaric effort.
        And the cheapest way to handle it to have is to have a sacrosanct one-purpose tax-funded fund, which pays for:
        A) An adequate public health system.
        B) The free choice of using a private alternative instead, with a subsidy equal to the cost of providing the service in the public system.

        If the private sector is more efficient than the public, then they will be able to make the necessary profits for investment out of the same rates.
        If the private sector is unable to fully cover their costs (including shareholder profits) out of the rates, they’ll have to provide better service.

        It is not a problem that money will buy better services if the public alternative is adequate.

    • #2876924

      For the first time ever, I agree with Ron Paul.

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      If someone can afford to insurance (and that’s the key part) and makes the decision to not purchase it, why should anyone else be stuck paying his bills? Liquidate the assets he chose to leave unprotected until there’s nothing left. If that means that the plug gets pulled should no one else choose to accept the financial obligations, so be it. (Note that Paul did NOT say that.) I’m tired of being charged to cover those who will not (not those who cannot) accept the responsibility for their own financial responsibility, in this and many other areas.

      None of this applies to those who cannot afford health care or insurance coverage. I have no solution to that problem. But dropping concerns about those who can afford it certainly reduces the number of people society should be working toward a solution for.

      • #2876913

        An idea that’s been bouncing around in my head for a while

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to For the first time ever, I agree with Ron Paul.

        First of all, setting the stage with a couple of reforms (how to implement them and deciding the details to be put on the back burner):

        1. Change the relationship Insurance has with the medical industry. The control insurance has over medical should be severed. Consumers should be in the driver’s seat when it comes to purchasing medical goods and services, not insurance (and not government).

        2. Do away with the employer provided policy. The reason employers got into that racket to begin with was as a way to get around wage freezes that government implemented in the 1940s. Just increase the employee’s wages by the same amount that company is paying for the policy, and let the employee become the insurance consumer. (This would also, most likely, be a huge boost to business – stimulating the economy without spending a federal dime.)

        3. Insurance policies should be issued for very severe and catastrophic medical cases only (analogy: like you would use insurance when you have a major accident with your vehicle, but not to replace that cracked tail light or windshield). The premiums for such a policy would probably fall into a range similar to term life policies. And the older a person is when purchasing said policy, the higher the premiums would be. And just like term life policies, if a young person buys one, even though the likelihood of him needing it would be remote, and continues to carry it throughout his life, it would lock-in premiums at a lower rate for his older years, thereby encouraging its purchase early in life.

        4. Other than those very severe and catastrophic medical cases, pay as you go for medical goods and services. Pay out-of-pocket for doctor visits, check-ups, minor ailments, minor cuts, bumps, bruises, fractures, etc.

        5. Structure automobile insurance policies so that medical needs resulting from automobile accidents are covered under those policies, not a major medical policy.

        Okay, the stage is set for my idea on how to pay for those who could afford insurance, but refuse to do so; and for those who truly cannot afford insurance; and even for those who cannot afford those out-of-pocket expenses, as described in my set-up item number four.

        Any parent who’s sent a kid off to college knows the drill when it comes to applying for college financial aid. Whether the aid comes in the form of a Pell Grant, a college-based aid package, etc., the request goes through a type of clearing house to first determine need. People with lesser financial means get the aid; people with greater financial means pay the tuition; people in the middle get a bit of both. But by applying for said educational aid, the family’s whole financial picture is known and considered.

        Have a similar clearing house for awarding medical financial aid. It would be awarded on sliding scale basis, tied into one’s financial ability to pay. The difference between medical and educational, however, is that while the educational is applied for before the fact, the medical would be applied for after the fact.

        If the low-income parents of a young child are faced with something that strikes at the health of the child, something that results in insurmountable medical expenses, they could apply for said medical aid. In such cases, it might be awarded at 100 percent, or perhaps some percentage a bit lower, based on their overall financial situation.

        If a 27 year old electrical engineer who’s making 50k, 60k per year, has a nasty ski accident that results in tens of thousands of dollars in subsequent medical expenses, but he had chosen not to purchase the aforementioned major medical insurance policy, he’d receive the emergency medical care, to be sure; but when he was presented with the bill for $30,000 and realized he was a bit short in the cash department, he would then apply for said medical aid. In his case, however, the aid would probably be denied, and he would be told to make payments of $$$ per month for a term of XX years. Too bad, Mr. young engineer. You might have to forget about that new Lexus for a while and settle for an Escort; or forget about those costly ski trips for a few years.

        I could go on with examples, but that should illustrate my idea. The medical clearing house would pay the amount due for both example cases so the medical provider would not be left out in the cold, but the engineer would be paying that money back to the medical clearing house.

        Where would the funding come from for said medical clearing house? Well, individuals and groups could – and would – donate. People donate fortunes to colleges so they can live on by way of having some campus building named after them. Likewise, people will donate large sums and have medical wings bear their name. (I’m not suggesting people donate just to get their name attached to a building; these people are very, very generous.) In the case of that engineer who suffered the ski accident, the medical clearing house would actually be the facilitators of a bank loan (similar to a student loan).

        I also believe that reforms like these would cause the cost of administering and receiving medical care to plummet. People would become more responsible and savvy consumers. Competition would flourish.

        The devil is in the details, to be sure, and there are plenty of details to be tossed around for discussion, but that’s one way to facilitate payments for medical care.

        A totally separate factor in the debate should be addressed separately:

        The problem with our aging population is a side-matter. Personally speaking, I’ve come to terms with my ultimate demise. No one will escape death, and no cure will ever be found. But as medical technology advances, people are being kept alive longer and longer. But at whose expense?

        Do a Web search for [i]Dick Lamm duty to die[/i]. Lamm (a Democrat) took a lot of heat for his comments back in 1984, but he was spot-on in illustrating what was, at the time, a looming financial disaster waiting to happen. Well, that time has now arrived. And in my opinion, Dick Lamm and his comments has been vindicated.

        One more thing:

        People should stop being vilified for speaking such truths. But that’s the nature of politics. What to do about that, I have no idea – except to tell people to stop buying into the claims made by demagogues. Fat chance of that, I would guess.

        • #2876908

          Responses.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to An idea that’s been bouncing around in my head for a while

          “3. Insurance policies should be issued for very severe and catastrophic medical cases only (analogy: like you would use insurance when you have a major accident with your vehicle, but not to replace that cracked tail light or windshield).”

          That might encourage people to adopt behaviors less likely to require them to require medical attention.

          “5. Structure automobile insurance policies so that medical needs resulting from automobile accidents are covered under those policies, not a major medical policy.”

          I don’t disagree with this, but who pays if a pedestrian gets hit?

          Your clearing house proposal is interesting, but how does that differ from what the insurance companies basically do now? Who’s on this decision making board of this organization, and how did they get there?

        • #2876906

          Who pays if a pedestrian gets hit?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Responses.

          The automobile driver, of course – unless it’s the pedestrian who’s at fault.

          In the case of a hit and run? Well, walking across the street might pose just as big a risk as skiing down a Colorado ski slope. The same rules would apply. The pedestrian’s major medical would pay, or in the absence of such a policy, apply for medical financial aid and let the chips fall where they may.

          We can’t address or eliminate all risks in life.

          Re: [i]Your clearing house proposal is interesting, but how does that differ from what the insurance companies basically do now? Who’s on this decision making board of this organization, and how did they get there? [/i]

          No, it’s not what insurance companies currently do. Who’s on the board and such? Details to be decided.

        • #2876885

          A couple of complications

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to An idea that’s been bouncing around in my head for a while

          First, if I am given a big wad of money and become responsible for my own insurance policy, insurors will treat me as an individual and not as part of a group. Individuals are charged more, because the sickly ones are sure to want to buy insurance; the healthy, less so.

          Second, if I am given a big wad of money equivalent to what my employer and I spend on insuring my family (about $14,000), what’s to keep my employer from gradually whittling down my salary until the $14,000 effectively disappears? A lot of people, especially employers, would just regard the health care offset as another form of salary.

        • #2876843

          …after the fact…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to An idea that’s been bouncing around in my head for a while

          Just want to clarify something: do you mean by “after the fact” that the person is given the needed procedure within the time frame stipulated by the diagnosing doctor… and then afterwards (if they choose to apply for aid) it will be decided how large a degree they’ll have to pay?
          That’s how I understood it, but I wanted to make sure. So as to not have people receiving a “Very well, you can have the surgery”-letter after it’s too late.

        • #2876832

          You stated it correctly

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to …after the fact…

          Not that I would ever expect such an idea ever see any daylight outside of my own mind. Like I said, it was an idea that’s been bouncing around in there for a while, and I just decided to let it out to go for a walk through the TR threads.

          But I do think that such a system (as fully described) has merit.

        • #2876830

          Too bad

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You stated it correctly

          It would get the job done, and doesn’t seem to step on too many ideological toes (as I gather).
          Bureaucracy is the only thing it has to be monitored for, the review process could become costly… but then, any system will cause bureaucracy.

          You probably don’t want public hospitals competing with private ones, so how to avoid exploitation of the system by overpricing?

        • #2876755

          Its a work in process

          by av . ·

          In reply to An idea that’s been bouncing around in my head for a while

          I like your plan, I really wouldn’t change much.

          1. I’d love to see the insurance companies get out of the relationship between doctor and patient. Medical decisions should be determined by the patient and the doctor, not a paper pusher behind a desk at the insurance company. If a doctor determines that you need certain medical treatment, why should an insurance company be able to second-guess the doctor’s decision? When you pick your insurance plan, they tell you how much they will pay for certain services, but should you need those services, they always try to find ways to get out of paying. Another thing I don’t like is how they base what they will pay for a procedure on an average (customary) fee. Well, healthcare doesn’t cost the same in all states, so it really isn’t fair. If they say they will pay 80% of a bill, then thats what they should pay no matter where you live.

          2. Right on with this one! Right on! I couldn’t agree more. One of the biggest reasons companies don’t hire permanently is because then they have to pay healthcare benefits. Those benefits cost companies a LOT of $$$$. For example, when my husband lost his job a couple of years ago at a big pharma company, we were covered under his benefit plan. We paid about $300 a month under their plan. When I received the COBRA notice, I was floored! Almost $1100 a month! That was just a husband and wife policy. Thankfully, I was able to buy into the plan at work, which was considerably more because I had to buy the family plan. They only offer single or family coverage. Thats ridiculous. I don’t have a family.

          If they gave me the $10K that they invested in healthcare for me in salary, I’d be able to save money by purchasing just the healthcare I need on the open market. Of course, the government would try to tax the extra earnings, but what if they they didn’t. Maybe some tax dollars could be directed to a separate personal health savings account for that. It would defray only YOUR catastrophic medical costs. The government wouldn’t be involved in running it, but they would mandate it for insurance companies.

          Its a common sense approach that would solve so many problems.

          PS: another upside to this is that my HR department will no longer be able to keep tabs on my health, the medicine I take, etc. etc.

          3. Another great idea. This would reduce the cost of healthcare exponentially. Most insurance today doesn’t charge a co-pay anymore for yearly preventative care. In reality, those services aren’t free. It increases the cost for everyone, I don’t know by how much, but its likely built into premiums, which are very high already. If all of the little stuff was paid for out of pocket by individuals, that would definitely reduce the cost and complexity of healthcare.

          Now, under Obamacare, insurance companies are required to cover the costs of birth control too. Thats just outrageous. I thought I was seeing things when I read it. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/care_truth_sinks_in_Lw2oQUrLTkawNQQkvsT8M

          Its not because I’m religious, I think thats going overboard. Women have more healthcare needs then men, for sure. My plan at work covers Mammograms and my yearly visit to my not so favorite doctor. I think thats enough, but birth control? To me, thats my personal responsibility. My choice. The government doesn’t belong in my underwear drawer, you know what I mean?

          4. I think you’re absolutely right. Insurance should basically cover catastrophic illness. I’d like to see an option to cover a couple preventative measures for women. I’m adding in Mammograms and my least favorite doctor visit, because every woman should have it. Its cost prohibitive for many women because its so expensive. Other things, like colds, minor stuff should be paid out of pocket. That alone would reduce the cost of healthcare.

          5. I’m not sure this would work in my state. We have an auto insurance mandate and it already costs a fortune. If you add in the cost of a health catastrophy policy, it could be cost prohibitive.

          I think the medical clearing house is a good option for those people that have no medical insurance. They don’t have many options except for charity. Still, the money to pay for it will have to come from the rest of us. We have to support the truly needy, but anyone else. no.

          AV

      • #2876910

        "I have no solution to that problem."

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to For the first time ever, I agree with Ron Paul.

        That had to be the most refreshing admission by far in all I have encountered about the subject, here or anywhere else.

        Stands out from all the carnival barking.

        I sense an avenue to it; a way.
        .

      • #2876821

        I don’t like paying for other people either

        by av . ·

        In reply to For the first time ever, I agree with Ron Paul.

        The only real way to get everyone to pay is through a mandate of some kind. If you took all of the assets of most people, that wouldn’t even be enough money to pay for treatment of a catastrophic illness.

        Maybe we need a healthcare tax to guarantee that you won’t lose everything if you get sick. I’d give a few bucks a paycheck for that.

        Unfortunately, there is no solution for healthcare for the poor, except that the rest of us will pay for it in our premiums. It shouldn’t mean that we should subsidize 50 million people either. Thats a scam.

        http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm

        Healthcare has to become more affordable. Anyone should be able to shop around for it like any other product and pricing should be competitive. I’ve never liked having health care benefits tied to your employer. I’d rather have my employer pay me more and I can pick my own policy.

        AV

        • #2876811
          Avatar photo

          What about Protection then?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I don’t like paying for other people either

          Is it right to say that Police should not attend Poor People who are adversely impacted by Crime?

          Or should the Countries Armed Forces only defend bits of the country where wealth people live?

          For instance what is the difference between providing Universal Health Care and Universal Defense of a country?

          For instance in an event like Pearl Harbor you expect that the defense people there defend the base to be able to provide defense in other parts of the country. It’s just wrong to suggest that the poor who are in the defense forces have no right to a defense like the Upper Class in the US. Seminally it’s silly to say that those who join the defense forces need to only defend the General Public they have to first defend their bases so that they have the ability to defend the general public. 😉

          Also if you do not provide a Universal Health Service and allow those who can not afford to buy their own Health Care you are leaving yourself far more exposed to outbreaks of disease. Things Like Polo have in the past swept countries and infected people weather or not that had health insurance.

          Those who don’t have Health insurance if left untreated just make it more likely for those with health insurance to get infected. Any Plague that is allowed to sweep any country will not only infect those with no health Insurance but those with Health insurance so in cases like Virulent Infections that regularly sweep the globe it’s better to treat everyone as apposed to only treat those with health Insurance and then make it more likely that they will get infected. That is how vaccines work once you treat a certain % of the entire population the chances of a Plague occurring stops.

          Or look at AIDS when it first hit the Western World. Those who where poor and Homosexual where the ones who caught it and they then sold their blood tot he Blood Services thus infecting the majority of those who had Health Insurance. AIDS is a perfect example of why you need a Universal Health Service as apposed to leaving people to their own devices, if you do that a lot of people will end up getting infected and suffering the adverse outcomes that otherwise could have been minimized.

          Col

        • #2876810

          How can I call that . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What about Protection then?

          ….. well, never mind.

        • #2876789
          Avatar photo

          It’s OK Maxwell I was responding to the heading in the beginning at least

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to How can I call that . . . . .

          [i]I don’t like paying for other people either [/i]

          I just don’t see why the Military or Police should be expected to protect people who do not pay for the service. You know the Good Old User Pays System that the Pollies are so happy to expound at every opportunity.

          I think it’s crazy but that’s me. 😉

          As for the rest the likely hood of Rampant Infections spreading on a regular basis around the world would be expected if the masses where not immunized against things like Polio, TB, & Small Pox. Those diseases are all but extinct and will very soon be when the programs to eradicate them are completed.

          They are not the things we want circulating the world on a regular basis like they used to not so long ago.

          Or maybe I was just having a bad day. :^0 😀 :^0 😀

          Col

        • #2876786

          Hm… "user pays"… there’s a thought!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to It’s OK Maxwell I was responding to the heading in the beginning at least

          So, the people who (ab)use the country should be paying for it’s defense! That means that people like politicians and Ruby McUrdoch have to pay the whole of the defense budget.
          That’s great, we can order some more tanks, so that the poor people running the defense can do it in style and comfort :p

        • #2876703

          I don’t care if everyone pays.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I don’t like paying for other people either

          “The only real way to get everyone to pay is through a mandate of some kind.”

          Or let those who chose not to pay suffer the consequences of their inaction and serve as examples.

    • #2876919
      Avatar photo

      This may be timely

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      I remember a TV Show recently [i]like this week[/i] where one of the Firemen that did duty on the World Trade Centre Site after 9-11 was saying that they had to have a Bone Marrow Transplant and they where unsure if their Insurance Covered the 200K of the procedure.

      Seems that there is something dramatically wrong when any place can run up a bill of that much and then wonder if they will get paid.

      Maybe more importantly who is responsible for that Medical Bill the person who got Cancer or the people who caused him to get cancer by demanding that he work on a Contaminated Site to clean up the mess after the event.

      To me at least there is something fundamentally wrong where any Emergency Service Worker should be in a position of dying years after they do work for the Public Good and are let wondering if their treatment will be covered.

      Or why after so many of these people have got severely sick and been forced to retire years before they otherwise would have why the Insurance Companies who where supposed to cover these people have a gapping hole in their available money to pay for these treatments.

      In True Free Enterprise Environment, Trading while Insolvent is the Worst Possible thing that any company can do but in the US we have Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Protection [i]I believe it called[/I] which allows Insolvent Companies to continue to trade and run up even bigger debts.

      And then I suppose who is responsible for these people when the Companies that where chosen for them, to cover them go broke and they are left Uncovered? Is it right that they should suffer and Die because the Free Enterprise System that seems so Impotent to the US Citizens here is a failure?

      Maybe I’m just Insane but to me at least any Insurance is just a [b]Ponzi Scheme[/b] that has to fail when the Wrong Circumstances are reached. You can not continue to pump money into any system with the promise of Coverage and honour that Coverage when the Incomes are dropping and the number of new members all but dries up. Even if it’s legislated as in Public Health that requires a constant increase on any Countries Numbers so that the coming Generations pay for the past Generations eventually.

      In the West with Dropping Birth Rates and lower Immigration all Health Services are exposed for the jokes that they actually are. 😉

      So in the case of the Fireman above who required a Bone Marrow Transplant who should pay the Medical Bill? Him or the Community that he worked for and demanded he do that work?

      Col

      • #2876907

        Insurance isn’t a Ponzi scheme; it’s a gamble.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to This may be timely

        You bet your payoff is going to be bigger than your wager. Insurance agencies call their odds makers ‘actuaries’; you and I call them bookies.

        • #2876878
          Avatar photo

          While that may be the idea

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Insurance isn’t a Ponzi scheme; it’s a gamble.

          How many Insurance Companies have filed for Bankruptcy after a Major Event like a Cyclone hitting a Major Population Center?

          Or how many Insurance Companies have slowed down Insurance Claims Acceptance so that they have enough money to pay out for what they covered.

          Remove all new customers from the Mix and the system Fails which is exactly what happens to a Ponzi Scheme. 😉

          Col

        • #2876829

          Except…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to While that may be the idea

          they rig the odds.
          That’s why they’re called Actuaries, rather than bookies.
          They’re like special forces infantry where the bookies are like local pub bouncers.
          When they rig the odds, they don’t fluck around.

          They do file for bankruptcy from time to time, but that’s not because they don’t have the money… it’s because they don’t want to PAY the money.
          Better to go bankrupt and shuffle the money around until it doesn’t exist anymore.
          Same with delayed payments, or policies which turn out in fact not to cover anything… all just ways to make sure too much of their money doesn’t fall into the wrong hands… i.e. the consumers’. 😉

        • #2876827
          Avatar photo

          So they still behave like a Ponzi thought

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Except…

          Don’t they?

          No matter what they chose to call it they behave exactly the same and are a bad choice particularly when you have none. 😉

          Col

        • #2876713
          Avatar photo

          Also something here about Insurance Companies

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Except…

          While mainly aimed at the General Insurance Industry it applies equally to the Health Insurance Companies as well.

          When there is a Massive Event Insurance Companies do not follow National Set Guidelines but default to their own internal procedures.

          So while it is mostly relating to things like Wide Spread Adverse Weather Events for the normal instance like the Floods in Queensland earlier this year where 2 million people where adversely impacted. Large Health Events which you should read a Serious Disease Outbreaks allow the Health Insurance Companies to ditch the National Guidelines on how they deal with their customers and follow internal procedures which is never in the customers best interests.

          Here with Health Insurance a large instance of something occurring results in the ditching of National Guidelines and the insurance company reverting to it’s own internal procedures which means Screw the Customer and save our money.

          I would imagine it’s the same world wide so the only thing I have to ask is in Health Insurance what constitutes a Large Outbreak. 3 people in a Cancer cluster at the same work place, a thousand people adversely impacted by some event or what? It seems to be a figure that the individual insurance companies can dictate to suit themselves. 😉

          Col

    • #2876905

      We should cover everybody, and pay for it. But the insurance model sucks.

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Sorry to disappoint you, Max, but the new era of man has arrived, and everybody in a first-world economy expects medical care as a human right. Except for some libertarians, and apparently you, who believe that freedom is crucially offended by a system mutual assistance. I’m not sure what bothers you more: paying for somebody else, being dependent on somebody else’s care system, or just being required to do something as part of a government program. Well, the world has changed, and for better or worse we are on a path that treats health care much like national defense: something that shelters everyone, and that everyone pays for.

      Decent health care is something that costs way too much, which is one reason why it has to be supported by insurance. However, the biggest reason it costs so much is our insurance design itself. Insurance separates the payers from payees from the beneficiaries; your employer pays the insuror, patients choose who receives the money, the doctors design a treatment program and bill for whatever they deliver. Nobody is making decisions based on cost and buyer preference, the kind of decisions that in the rest of the economy give you a variety of choices and hold down prices. What we have now is a system that pays for services limited only by the medical industry’s capacity to provide them. No surprise that we’ve turned a sixth of our economy over to the medical industry, and that it is expected to grow more.

      Just turning off insurance would not solve the problem. Treatment is more technological and expensive than it was in the comfortable 1960s, when setting your bones and giving you a morphine drip was the peak of patient care. Charitable hospitals can’t afford to pick up what is a much more detailed and costly mission, like they did 100 years ago. Also, hospitals are designed to handle expensive crisis care, not routine care of mildly ill people, like diabetics. Universal health care has to address everything, so that little problems don’t become big expensive ones, and so that quality of life is actually improved by health care (something that happens less than 100% of the time even among people currently insured.)

      The Obama plan probably slows the growth in cost somewhat, but it doesn’t fix what’s at the middle of the problem: our system of payments just guarantees that the bills will forever become bigger. We need a system that covers everyone, yet uses consumer choice to put a cap on costs. I have not heard any proposals for how to do that when Obamacare was being debated and voted on.

      • #2876903

        Medical care a human right?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to We should cover everybody, and pay for it. But the insurance model sucks.

        I have to read no further, since such a premise is so flawed. No such human right can exist if it has to be delivered at the expense of another – regardless of how you try to justify it.

        • #2876900

          You certainly don’t fight the proposition

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Medical care a human right?

          Any time somebody challenges a M.E. argument by saying people would die unless somebody pays for their care, M.E. laughs and calls it a phony assertion, because nobody dies from lack of emergency care in the U.S. Everybody is entitled to critical care at any hospital, even if they can’t pay.

          So, is that a bad thing, or a good thing? The whole society (that being the paying customer base of all hospitals) bears the cost of keeping sick people with no money from a prompt death. Given that this cost is not covered by cash arriving on church collection plates or by extraordinary gifts, but instead by raising the price to everybody else, should we keep it up? It is, after all, a tax on everyone who works and pays for his care.

          If you say that the un-monied are entitled to emergency treatment in this rich country, you’re a long way toward accepting that they deserve health care.

        • #2876892

          Expense of another is no limit to rights.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Medical care a human right?

          …especially if the other is willing.

          If a majority of the people, and a majority of their representatives have codified their willingness, then even the unwilling are no hindrance.

          The universal limit to a LIBERTY is where another is harmed.
          For rights, things are different.
          For example, the right to self-defense is not curtailed by bodily harm done to the assailant.

          You may be thinking that a right may be limited where it comes into conflict with the rights of others… but there is no right to be free of expense.

    • #2876867

      Give it up, AV

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      This thread will not take off. Everyone is being entirely too reasonable.

      Like the situation of healthcare, groupthink isn’t working any better than the problem it purports to solve.

      Maybe it’s the reasoning process itself. Maybe what we need is to have someone or something wade in with an unreasoning sword.
      .

      • #2876854
        Avatar photo

        Or maybe Santee

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Give it up, AV

        The Take your Gun to Work Today is turning into a bigger monster than the EL Thread and we are all to scared to help another take off. :p

        Col

    • #2876860

      Summing up:

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Does ANYONE think insurance is an appropriate tool for handling healthcare? Doesn’t sound like it.
      So I guess insurance is what is taken for granted in the political status quo, because they cannot agree on what’s to replace it.

      Another topic in this discussion is how people can receive emergency treatment even if they can’t pay… I think there are two aspects to add to this : Think back on the last ten times you’ve had medical treatment – how many of those constituted medical emergencies? If a treatment was not for a medical emergency – would you have wanted to be without it?
      The second aspect is, what if a person can pay, but it means screwing over their own economy, for example creating a choice between food and mortgage payments in the near future? What does “can afford it” really mean in this debate?

    • #2876779
      Avatar photo

      OK is it just me

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Or have some posts disappeared from this thread?

      I know I’m crazy but even I seem to remember some more posts here. 🙁

      Please tell me its not another Undocumented Feature of the Platform that TR is running on. 😉

      Col

      • #2876766

        Was it a post containing a full half of War and Peace?

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to OK is it just me

        The latter half replaced with hyperlinks for “baby-hide sandals” and the like?

        • #2876756
          Avatar photo

          I wasn’t not seeing that one

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Was it a post containing a full half of War and Peace?

          But the latter ones that I added and Max’s response.

          They are back now so TR normal and just plain screwy. ;(

          Col

        • #2876752

          It’s an easter egg…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I wasn’t not seeing that one

          for the observant, it’s “fun” to find this reference to Roger Rabbit and the disappearing-reappearing ink.

        • #2876745
          Avatar photo

          No Easter here any more

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It’s an easter egg…

          Apparently the Greyhound group has used the Easter Bunny to Blood their Greyhounds and it’s limited remains are now used at the side of every Greyhound Track for the dogs to chase for each race. :p

          Col

        • #2876709

          I shouldn’t breach client confidentiality … really, I shouldn’t.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to No Easter here any more

          But according to a document I had to translate for the EU last week, the absence of the Easter Bunny has been handled politically.

          So easter eggs are now laid by Politicians.
          They’re big and brown, but … it’s not chocolate.

    • #2876649

      Why isn’t

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to What should we do with the uninsured?

      Life insurance being considered for mandate?

      • #2876643

        "Mandatory" life insurance.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Why isn’t

        I remember when I first joined the Army. Our drill sergeant explained the military life insurance program (SGLI) to us as follows:

        “Boys, you get $5000 life insurance free and automatically. You can also sign up and pay for up to $100,000 more (since raised to $200K). Think about it: if Uncle Sam has to send someone to war, he’s going to send the guy that costs him the least.”

Viewing 13 reply threads