Ron Paul activist gets sick; suddenly socialized medicine doesn't look so bad

[lomiller]

How do we "fix" the problem of expensive healthcare? Well, medical tort reform may go some way in dealing with this

The thing I always find funny about this is that libertarians insist that regulation isn’t required because if something untoward is going on it can be addressed via civil lawsuits. But when it comes to actually lawsuits they don’t want to allow those either.

If the Republicans are right, one can't buy insurance across state lines, which does hamper competition.

Irrelevant since the amount of competition isn’t what’s driving costs. What drives cost in the US healthcare system is the way risk pools are structured and then subsequent need for insurance companies to enforce their risk pools. This causes the administrative overhead in the US healthcare system to be up to 30X higher then universal systems.

Perhaps simple education could help. Many people chose a high premium plan over a high deductible plan for fear of "the unexpected" when some simple math would reveal that in a year they would actually spend less with the high deductible plan even if something "unexpected happen".

High deductable plans discourage earlier, but cheaper resolution to medical problems. In almost all cases it’s much cheaper to deal with a medical problem early on then, so anything that discourages people from getting early less expensive treatment raises the overall cost of the medical care system. Consider yourself educated

 

[EatatJoes]

The thing I always find funny about this is that libertarians insist that regulation isn’t required because if something untoward is going on it can be addressed via civil lawsuits. But when it comes to actually lawsuits they don’t want to allow those either.

I must be one of the few people who converse with Libertarians who do believe that regulation is needed but that the government is not needed to do the regulating. I also don't know any Libertarians who believe that civil lawsuits shouldn't be allowed. In order to have a system in which property rights (you could say that your body is your property) are acknowledged and maintained, there must be a system of accountability. The court system is well equipped to act as that system.

Irrelevant since the amount of competition isn’t what’s driving costs. What drives cost in the US healthcare system is the way risk pools are structured and then subsequent need for insurance companies to enforce their risk pools. This causes the administrative overhead in the US healthcare system to be up to 30X higher then universal systems.

According to the Kaiser Institute, "It is estimated that at least 7% of health care expenditures are for administrative costs (e.g., marketing, billing) and this portion is much lower in the Medicare program (<2%), which is operated by the federal government." No doubt cutting those costs would save us money but would there be a way for those companies to cut costs that didn't involve getting rid of them and relying on gov't healthcare? The government does mandate that insurance companies cover many things. What if those mandates were removed? How much would that save?

High deductable plans discourage earlier, but cheaper resolution to medical problems. In almost all cases it’s much cheaper to deal with a medical problem early on then, so anything that discourages people from getting early less expensive treatment raises the overall cost of the medical care system. Consider yourself educated

We are then thinking of two different high deductible plans. People chose to pay MORE for low-deductible plans when they could pay what they do for those plans but have that money saved in an HSA which could actually be used for healthcare costs instead of it just going to premiums. And the high-deductible plans that I were offered actually covered preventive care at 100% before the deductible kicked in.

 

[EatatJoes]

Why am I asking? Because a) you intimated that I was lying about the cost of a stroke, and b) this goes to the heart of why the Libertarian Utopia fails. If you have money, you get to live. If you don't then there are no solutions. If you are a proponent of abolishing government insurance like Medicare and Medicaid, you have to explain how a stroke victim with $2 million in bills will get to see a doctor. If you can't, then you have no ideas about health care worth listening to.

Take this up with a Libertarian who believes that their philosophy would lead to a utopia and that people without the means to pay for health care would be without options.

 

[Unabogie]

Take this up with a Libertarian who believes that their philosophy would lead to a utopia and that people without the means to pay for health care would be without options.

So you admit you were wrong about the $2 million dollars? Let's go in small steps here, I can't jump all over the place with you.

1. A stroke can cost $2 million dollars.
2. Libertarians want to abolish Medicare

Are either of those false?

 

[EatatJoes]

So you admit you were wrong about the $2 million dollars? Let's go in small steps here, I can't jump all over the place with you.

1. A stroke can cost $2 million dollars.
2. Libertarians want to abolish Medicare

Are either of those false?

You stated your "fact", I didn't argue the point (which is really besides the point because at no time did I state that healthcare can't be expensive). Libertarians would really like to get rid of most, if not all, "entitlement" programs offered by the government. But they don't want to get rid of it without creating a system in which healthcare was more affordable and (depending on the Libertarian you talk to) making health insurance more affordable. I'm pretty sure I have stated this at least 3 times. You are trying to create a strawman. Go make some hay with someone else.

 

[Unabogie]

You stated your "fact", I didn't argue the point (which is really besides the point because at no time did I state that healthcare can't be expensive). Libertarians would really like to get rid of most, if not all, "entitlement" programs offered by the government. But they don't want to get rid of it without creating a system in which healthcare was more affordable and (depending on the Libertarian you talk to) making health insurance more affordable. I'm pretty sure I have stated this at least 3 times. You are trying to create a strawman. Go make some hay with someone else.

No, you just don't want to address the points I'm making. Under what other system can a person with a $2 million dollar illness, but with no insurance, pay for this care, if there is no help from the government? Who pays under the Libertarian system? I keep asking, but you keep referring to "making it more affordable". How? Tort reform? Any other ideas? You just won't offer specific alternatives, so I'm left to fill in your blanks. How about you state for our benefit how this will work, so I can stop making hay, hey?

 

[WildCat]

delete

 

[Earthborn]

Many people chose a high premium plan over a high deductible plan for fear of "the unexpected" when some simple math would reveal that in a year they would actually spend less with the high deductible plan even if something "unexpected happen".

This is a good thing. By paying more in premiums than they are likely to take out, they contribute to the insurance pool. With lower premiums and higher deductibles, costs are shared less; the sick are still going to have to pay more than the healthy instead of the healthy subsidising the sick.

And with a high-deductible plan you can use a HSA. I would like to see HSA's used for all insurance plans, not just high-deductible ones.

Health Savings Accounts are ridiculous. Healthy people saving money for themselves instead of contributing to the healthcare costs of the sick is the very last thing you should want. It will lead to a situation in which many people will save money they may not ever use, while other people need money they may not ever get.

There is a deductible but enrolling in an HSA helps insure that any extra money you are saving for healthcare actually stays with you ...

It is not supposed to stay with you. It is supposed to go to the people who need it more than you do. That's the whole point of insurance: lots of people pay in, those in need are paid out.

... and I believe you earn interest on those accounts (even if it's modest).

You can get a modest interest on an ordinary savings account. Why would you need a "health" savings account?

There are ways to cut costs and some of those ways don't involve a healthcare "mandate" or even more gov't regulation.

Without a mandate, the whole system will continue to suffer from adverse selection.

No doubt cutting those costs would save us money but would there be a way for those companies to cut costs that didn't involve getting rid of them and relying on gov't healthcare? The government does mandate that insurance companies cover many things. What if those mandates were removed? How much would that save?

It would save nothing. If insurance companies are not mandated to cover certain things, and those things still need to be done then someone still has to pay for them. And that someone is probably going to be the government. Not covering things would be a great way for an insurance company to cut costs, but it is by relying on the government to pick up the tab.

 

[WildCat]

You can get a modest interest on an ordinary savings account. Why would you need a "health" savings account?

Because you can put pre-tax money into a HSA.

 

[Earthborn]

Libertarians would really like to get rid of most, if not all, "entitlement" programs offered by the government. But they don't want to get rid of it without creating a system in which healthcare was more affordable and (depending on the Libertarian you talk to) making health insurance more affordable.

I've debated other Libertarians. You may not be one of them, but some of them want to get rid of all entitlement programs -- including healthcare programs -- without first creating a system in which healthcare was more affordable. They believe that once the government isn't involved any more, the Free Market will create that affordable healthcare system.

 

[The Painter]

My boss had a stroke last year and his bills are right about at $2 million dollars, so I'm speaking from personal knowledge, not hyperbole. Now, how could he pay for this without insurance?

WOW 2 Million Dollars

It's a good thing your Boss is a very rich man!!!!!!!!!! Medicare only covers 80%. That means he had to come up with 400 Thousand Dollars of his own money. I'm glad it wasn't me. Where am I gonna' get that kind of money???? I thought government insurance was free??? Didn't cost nothing??? 400 Thousand Dollars ain't free.

 

[Unabogie]

WOW 2 Million Dollars

It's a good thing your Boss is a very rich man!!!!!!!!!! Medicare only covers 80%. That means he had to come up with 400 Thousand Dollars of his own money. I'm glad it wasn't me. Where am I gonna' get that kind of money???? I thought government insurance was free??? Didn't cost nothing??? 400 Thousand Dollars ain't free.

He's not on Medicare. We have insurance. Is it your point that Medicare isn't generous enough or are you just into ridiculing my sick friend?

 

[EatatJoes]

I've debated other Libertarians. You may not be one of them, but some of them want to get rid of all entitlement programs -- including healthcare programs -- without first creating a system in which healthcare was more affordable. They believe that once the government isn't involved any more, the Free Market will create that affordable healthcare system.

Well it's a good thing we aren't discussing that then.

 

[Unabogie]

Well it's a good thing we aren't discussing that then.

We're not? I thought we were discussing a Ron Paul devotee who previously wanted to abolish all government health care and make it all "voluntary" but who then got sick and is rethinking his previous stance.

Which thread are you on?

 

[The Painter]

He's not on Medicare. We have insurance. Is it your point that Medicare isn't generous enough or are you just into ridiculing my sick friend?

You don't remember saying this??

Why am I asking? Because a) you intimated that I was lying about the cost of a stroke, and b) this goes to the heart of why the Libertarian Utopia fails. If you have money, you get to live. If you don't then there are no solutions. If you are a proponent of abolishing government insurance like Medicare and Medicaid, you have to explain how a stroke victim with $2 million in bills will get to see a doctor. If you can't, then you have no ideas about health care worth listening to.

You brought it up


If he has insurance that pays 100%, good for him. When Obamacare kicks in over the next few years he won't have that kind of insurance anymore. He get that good ole government kind.

 

[Unabogie]

If he has insurance that pays 100%, good for him. When Obamacare kicks in over the next few years he won't have that kind of insurance anymore. He get that good ole government kind.

Do you really have this little understanding of the new health care law? To call this ignorance stunning is an understatement.

ETA: The best I can see is that the Medicare out of pocket max for a year is $4,900. So even on your big font tirade you're wrong about...well...everything.

ETA 2:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1024/49/30578/medicare-out-pocket-expenses.html

Actually, there is no cap, but it's considerably less than $400k.

Part A (hospital insurance): It costs nothing to enroll and you don’t pay monthly premiums (with a few exceptions to eligibility), but there is no annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses. The more services you use, the higher your expenses in the form of co-payments for outpatient care (usually 20 percent of the cost) and inpatient care. Currently, a $1,068 deductible covers your first 60 days in the hospital, but if you stay longer, you will be charged $267 a day from day 61 to day 90, and $534 per day from day 90 to 150--plus all costs after 150 days. Part B deductible is $135 for 2009.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You don't remember saying this??



You brought it up


If he has insurance that pays 100%, good for him. When Obamacare kicks in over the next few years he won't have that kind of insurance anymore. He get that good ole government kind.

Like in the UK, where the government pays 100%?

(No, I know Obamacare isn't like the NHS, it's far worse).

 

[novice skeptic]

Thread title should be changed to:

Young snot nosed kid thinks he's a libertarian because he doesn't want to pay for health care because he's too young to get sick UNTIL he gets sick and then young snot nosed kid becomes a socialist because of his own immediate self-interest.

 

[Tony]

I've heard people bring up allowing competition across state lines as a way to reduce costs on previous occasions. I don't know if that will reduce costs, but I see no reason why we shouldn't do that. But why not take it a step further and allow competition across international lines? Indeed, why not let American citizens buy into foreign nationalized healthcare plans?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I've heard people bring up allowing competition across state lines as a way to reduce costs on previous occasions. I don't know if that will reduce costs, but I see no reason why we shouldn't do that. But why not take it a step further and allow competition across international lines? Indeed, why not let American citizens buy into foreign nationalized healthcare plans?

Because that would be really really hard to manage?

How on earth are you, as an American, going to get NHS care?