This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, how old are you, JEROME?

What is your shoe size?

What is your point?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? SS is a pool of money that you pay into and get to take money out of when you retire. In some cases, you get to take out more than you put in, and in some you don't. If you die, and then get money paid to your accounts from this pool, I cannot see any reason that the govt should not return that money to the pool.

Its exactly the same scenario if you have to be confined to a nursing home and the govt pays for it. You don't get to "double dip" and get both SS and the additional medical care. The funds are pulled from the shared pool to take care of you.

How is any of that "arbitrary"?

There was no evidence that the woman was dead. That is what I mean by arbitrary. The government is restricted from taking from citizen without due process of law.

Then you either don't have children, don't use it much, or are unbelievably lucky. If you have any special medical issues, especially with children, then I can just about promise you that you will run into lots of red tape. One of my children has a medical condition that requires lots of specialists, and bills that will likely run into the hundreds of thousands over the course of several years. I have had to fight red tape with my HMO on and off for months, and this is by far not uncommon.

If you haven't had any problems with your HMO you should count yourself very lucky I assure you.

You should get a better insurance company. What are you going to do when you have zero choice?

That is exactly what an HMO does right now, there is not an ounce of difference. The only difference between the HMO systems we have right now and single payer is who pays the bill. There are already caps on coverage of both money and services based on purely financial considerations. I fail to see how that is in any way different from single payer.

The HMO system was regulated into a behemoth by government.

Please explain why you think government will be able to correct the problem they created.

Cost to whom? What about those who cannot get coverage and are routinely denied under the current system? What assumptions are you making to make this statement and what studies back you up?

Everyone in America can get health-care.

Medical services do not have to be "catastrophic" to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prescription medications for elderly can cost thousands of dollars a month, but that is only "catastrophic" if they don't get them.

Doesn't the government already give medicine to the elderly?

How can you use this as an argument for universal health-care if it is not a reality?

It seems to me you are dramatically simplifying the issues.

It seems to me that you are dramatically ignoring reality.

The system we have now is primarily corporate, with slight govt oversight corrupted by lobbyists. Its primary motivation is profit. At least under a single payer the primary motivation is to break even. The system we have now is broken in many ways, but the primary fault is the enormous number of people who either cannot afford health care or who can afford it but are denied coverage by HMO's.

You are just wrong here. The governmnet currently provides health-care to the old and the poor. The HMO system was created by government regulation.


You are arguing that the current system; which was created by government, can be solved by government.

Why are you ignoring the facts?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I asked the gnome about this idea of his, earlier. I mean, if it's such a good idea, there's nothing to stop companies offering such policies at the moment? Which ones are doing this and how popular are they?

Because it places the control in the hands of the individual is why it is no longer done.

And then, define "catastrophic". When Morgan Spurlock tried to live, with his fiancee, on the minimum wage/social security, he would probably have managed it but for a couple of relatively minor healthcare requirements. As it was, on their restricted budget, these costs were enough to blow their entire budget.

You are aware of life insurance? You can buy all kinds of coverage. Lots of choices for each individuals circumstance. Catastrophic health insurance would be similar.

So, who gets to define catastrophic, who says when a specific occurrence isn't covered, and how do people on low incomes afford even a dose of cystitis?

Rolfe.

It is defined by the market choices of the purchasers.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Inasmuch as no individual person actually stole her money (I presume), yes, it was a stupid bureaucratic error, and perhaps the stupid bureaucrat or two will have some kind of problem over it. How would you score it - satanic greed and pitiless malevalence? "Government run amuk" is about the limit; presumably it will get rectified. There are lots worse things going on in government, business and churches at every level.

If the administration did not have the right to take the money it is theft.

OK, I'll grant that. The SS thought they had the evidence, and they did what they can, evidently do. Of a certainty, the courts and the IRS have the unilateral power to freeze and garnishee your accounts without your permission.

We are not talking about permission. We are talking about due process.

That last, about disputes before the money is transferred is misleading. Anyone who says that they found a transaction on their bill that they didn't execute, even 3 months after the fact, can initiate a chargeback. It happens all the time; as a software vendor, it has happened to me multiple times, even with a declaration of "no refunds" all over the sale. The CC company doesn't ask; they just do it; it doesn't hurt them, after all.

Well, apparently you are being taken advantage of by the CC companies.

All you have to do is provide evidence that the transaction was valid and the CC company will not deduction monies from your account. You should keep better records to avoid this.

My father, who started working a union job in 1935, had a health insurance plan as a benefit. I have essentially the same deal today, except that I contribute into it. The amounts paid in were both based on group underwriting statistics. That is the part that is dead; groups can no longer be counted on to follow underwriters tables, since individuals can find out and act on the knowledge of disease not yet detectable except by genetics, and the insurance company can likewise get a genetic analysis of your blood done and deny insurance based on the results. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.

Nice story, but it has nothing to do with your claim that we have had the same system for 100 years.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is the funny country that Mr GNOME lives in the same one that wants to bring democracy to the World?

Because in the democracy where I live, we the people elect the government to do what we want. And it mostly works.

I disagree with making nations change their governments by the will of an outside nation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In another thread someone pointed out that the government are just people like you and me who have stood for election. That's quite right of course. I knew several of the current MSPs before they were elected, and they're just people.

The Gnome hotly denied this. I think to him, government is some sort of big bad bogey, way out of his ken, that has it in for him.

I think somebody was skiving the day they had the civics lessons.

Rolfe.

Bureaucracy: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority

Nope; not just people, a bureaucracy.

You do recognize the difference?

 

[mrbaracuda]

What is your shoe size?

I'd go with 47 on the scale we use in Germany.

What is your point?

Oh, just curious. So, how old are you, JEROME?

 

[Rolfe]

It is defined by the market choices of the purchasers.

So, let me get this clear. I'm Daddy Warbucks, and I have several hundred thousand dollars kicking around various places, available for healthcare costs should it be required. As a result, I only require insurance for very severe catastrophes. That's going to be quite a small premium, no problem. I'm all right Jack!

On the other hand, I'm on the minimum wage, struggling to make the rent and the fuel bills and so on. Even something relatively minor is going to cost so much that it completely wrecks my budget. I don't have any spare money supposing I break a leg or catch pneumonia in the winter.

Please do explain how that second category is going to meet its healthcare costs.

Rolfe.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, let me get this clear. I'm Daddy Warbucks, and I have several hundred thousand dollars kicking around various places, available for healthcare costs should it be required. As a result, I only require insurance for very severe catastrophes. That's going to be quite a small premium, no problem. I'm all right Jack!

On the other hand, I'm on the minimum wage, struggling to make the rent and the fuel bills and so on. Even something relatively minor is going to cost so much that it completely wrecks my budget. I don't have any spare money supposing I break a leg or catch pneumonia in the winter.

Please do explain how that second category is going to meet its healthcare costs.

Rolfe.

The cost of health-care will dramatically decrease if people pay out of pocket for care as opposed to the current system.

Health-care practitioners want to sell their services and they will charge fair market value set by the consumers and the competition. Currently the costs are determined by the insurance companies regulated by the government.

How about a system in which the consumer and doctor decide the cost of health-care?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oh, just curious. So, how old are you, JEROME?

Old enough to vote and not old enough to collect social security.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd go with 47 on the scale we use in Germany.

36 on the same scale.

Oh, just curious. So, how old are you, JEROME?

Less than that, I suspect.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The cost of health-care will dramatically decrease if people pay out of pocket for care as opposed to the current system.

Health-care practitioners want to sell their services and they will charge fair market value set by the consumers and the competition. Currently the costs are determined by the insurance companies regulated by the government.

How about a system in which the consumer and doctor decide the cost of health-care?

What is this guy smoking?

Rolfe.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What is this guy smoking?

Rolfe.

Reality.

Please explain why food distribution should not also be run by government if health-care is.

Is not food more important than health-care?

 

[WildCat]

Government regulation created the large insurance companies.

What is your shoe size?

What is your point?

I think the point is arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who simply parrots what he has read somewhere but doesn't actually know anything at all about the subject. Your answer to me aptly demonstrates that.

I'd be very surprised if you were out of your teens.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think the point is arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who simply parrots what he has read somewhere but doesn't actually know anything at all about the subject. Your answer to me aptly demonstrates that.

I'd be very surprised if you were out of your teens.

The HMO act of 1973 would be a good place to start your education in government regulation which has caused the current circumstance.

 

[ingoa]

Solution to the OP story:

If you declare someone dead make sure that he/she remains dead. Troofers believe in vast conspiracies. A little error correction (head shot for the living dead) should be standard procedure. Ergo: no error.

Final outcome:
Jerome is happy and many electrons saved due to a never started thread.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The HMO act of 1973 would be a good place to start your education in government regulation which has caused the current circumstance.

So it would.

The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-222), also known as the HMO Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 300e, is a law passed by the Congress of the United States that resulted from discussions Paul Ellwood had with what is today the Department of Health and Human Services. It provided grants and loans to provide, start, or expand a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO); removed certain state restrictions for federally qualified HMOs; and required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options alongside traditional indemnity insurance upon request (the "dual choice provision"). HMOs were required to meet three basic requirements. These were to offer a specified list of benefits to all members, charge all member the same monthly premium, and be structured as a nonprofit organization.

(From Wikipedia)

Strangely, it uh.. only states what they are.... doesn't establish any as super.

Knee jerk reaction, yet again!

 

[Rolfe]

Please explain why food distribution should not also be run by government if health-care is.

Is not food more important than health-care?

Everyone's requirement for basic nutrition is roughly similar. Beyond that, we are not talking necessity, we are talking luxury. Much of what most people purchase as food is in the luxury category rather than necessity. Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this? Nowhere near the proportion of the population who cannot purchase necessary healthcare. And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials? I think you'll find it does.

If everyone had roughly similar requirements for healthcare, so that everyone was required to spend about the same amount, then a similar system might work well. However, requirements for healthcare are grossly inequitable. Some people may never require anything much at all. Others may require a great deal. And only seldom can it be predicted who is in which category before the event.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Rolfe.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I think the point is arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who simply parrots what he has read somewhere but doesn't actually know anything at all about the subject. Your answer to me aptly demonstrates that.

I'd be very surprised if you were out of your teens.

I wasn't gonna be so direct, but yes, you are right.

36 on the same scale.

German? Or do they use that across Europe?

 

[Rolfe]

They use the same scale throughout Europe. Actually there is a British scale, and on that it's a 4, but all shoes these days have both sizes marked.

To be honest, I had to take a shoe off and check inside it to get the European size!

Rolfe.