• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Tony said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is a big red herring constructed by conservatives. There already is plenty of competition in a given state. If it were a problem, a big state like Texas or California would have substantially cheaper health care than Rhode Island or Connecticut. Does anyone here think there is a difference, state to state now?

No, the real reason why health care companies want to sell across state lines (note nothing is stopping them now) is that they can HQ in the state with the weakest regulation and abide by those rules. States then have a race to the bottom to become the home of all the health care companies. This is in the companies' best iterests, not the consumer.
 
Tony said:
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?
Click to expand...

Race to the bottom? Every insurer will change their headquarters to a PO box in the state with the most favorable regulations, just like banks did to bypass state usury regulations with credit cards. It's a feel good idea that would have little effect on the bottom line (lowering cost) and likely be detrimental in the long term. It's also rather disingenuous for the Republicans who proposed the idea to on one hand say federal government is not the answer and on the other want to take away state's ability to regulate health insurance.

OP's article, nothing new. Libertarians or anyone else beholden to the strict personal responsibility ideology are all laughs and screw you pal until they need help. If that guy had any character he would dig a hole and commit suicide in that hole as to minimize the burden he's now placed on the pocket book of others. It's his fault he didn't have insurance, he should have know better. Compassion is for the weak.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
This is a big red herring constructed by conservatives. There already is plenty of competition in a given state. If it were a problem, a big state like Texas or California would have substantially cheaper health care than Rhode Island or Connecticut. Does anyone here think there is a difference, state to state now?

No, the real reason why health care companies want to sell across state lines (note nothing is stopping them now) is that they can HQ in the state with the weakest regulation and abide by those rules. States then have a race to the bottom to become the home of all the health care companies. This is in the companies' best iterests, not the consumer.
Click to expand...


Right. As a matter of fact, the "sell insurance across state lines" phrase is mis-information. Insurers already can sell in any state where they can meet that state's health insurance regs. This notion is really the "eliminate individual states' health insurance regulatory infrastructure" proposal. It's all about Federalism -- until Federalism gets in the way of unfettered money-grubbing.
 
Earthborn said:
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.
Click to expand...

It allows free people to save their own money, unburdened by taxation, for future use. This, combined with private insurance, would allow them to save for the years when they do start using a lot of insurance.

However, FSAs ease the pressure for some kind of government takeover, and therefore they are unliked by those with an emotional interest in said growth of government.

This is why they do asinine things like seize all money from a particular year that you didn't use, while forcing you to make wild guesses as to how much you will use.

Guess too little at the beginning of the year, you run out and pay the extra out of the already-taxed dollars in your pocket.

Guess too much at the beginning of the year, you have thousands left over, and the government seizes it at the end of the year rather than rolling it over.

These are cheap, tawdry ways of kicking you in the balls so that you will not use the FSA as much so that the pressure will not be off quite as much so that government takeover remains marginally more popular than with a proper FSA system.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
This is why they do asinine things like seize all money from a particular year that you didn't use, while forcing you to make wild guesses as to how much you will use.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is asinine. Should roll over just like you mentioned.
 
EatatJoes said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does this play intoyour claim that medical costs could be reduced by tort reform limiting civil lawsuits?
 
fishbob said:
True but:

The amount is limited.
The money is 'use it or lose it'.
The administrative headache is an administrative headache.

The value of health savings accounts is questionable.
Click to expand...
I agree, I was just responding to that one point.
 
Beerina said:
It allows free people to save their own money, unburdened by taxation, for future use. This, combined with private insurance, would allow them to save for the years when they do start using a lot of insurance.

However, FSAs ease the pressure for some kind of government takeover, and therefore they are unliked by those with an emotional interest in said growth of government.

This is why they do asinine things like seize all money from a particular year that you didn't use, while forcing you to make wild guesses as to how much you will use.

Guess too little at the beginning of the year, you run out and pay the extra out of the already-taxed dollars in your pocket.

Guess too much at the beginning of the year, you have thousands left over, and the government seizes it at the end of the year rather than rolling it over.

These are cheap, tawdry ways of kicking you in the balls so that you will not use the FSA as much so that the pressure will not be off quite as much so that government takeover remains marginally more popular than with a proper FSA system.
Click to expand...



Where is the government takeover?? Please please let me know where I can sign up for my universal health care plan??
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yes. I work for an oncology practice. Bills totalling the millions are not uncommon. And people are always so surprised to learn that their insurance which covers 80% and sounded like sooo much coverage when they first got it, and then they discover that 20% of a million is $200,000. Mathematics are not forgiving, and insurers are not notable for their generosity. They'll fight like hell to avoid paying their share, they certainly aren't going to give you a break on your share. So unless your provider is wealthy enough to be generous and forget the debt, you get to have all the fun of selling your house to pay your bills, or just declaring bankruptcy. While sick.
Click to expand...

If people didn't want to go bankrupt they wouldn't get sick, basic libertatian principle that is.
 
EatatJoes said:
Perhaps "tort reform" wasn't the right phrase...How about malpractice insurance, which I suppose is linked fairly intimately to lawsuits...According to this website..."There actually is a law in Florida (see 458.320, F.S.) that says doctors must carry $100,000 in malpractice insurance in order to practice medicine at all, and in order to have hospital staff privileges (they see patients in hospitals and not just in their offices) they must have at least $250,000 in malpractice insurance. As an alternative to having an actual malpractice insurance policy, Florida law also allows doctors to use other types of pre-arranged secured assets to cover claims in these amounts, like trust accounts, bank letters of credit, and similar arrangements. There is nothing inherently wrong with these other types of security, but they are rarely used.

Unfortunately, these amounts of insurance are often woefully inadequate to pay the actual damages in medical negligence claims. What good is a $250,000 malpractice policy if the patient's injuries result in medical bills of $600,000?
Click to expand...

Why so small, try $600,000 a year for the rest of their life, which could be 20+ years. Go for the big damages.
 
fishbob said:
True but:

The amount is limited.
The money is 'use it or lose it'.
The administrative headache is an administrative headache.

The value of health savings accounts is questionable.
Click to expand...

HSA are not use it or lose it. You just have to have a high deductible health insurance to qualify for one.
 
Unabogie said:
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?
Click to expand...

If someone ends up with a catastrophic illness with no insurance, their options are usually bankruptcy (at least it was before that was reformed), or losing their house...They could get a celebrity behind them to raise funds to help pay for their bills. Obviously there needs to be a system in which these people can be treated without ending up homeless or dead. I'm just trying to get ideas out there so we can discuss them. I never stated that I had the all the answers but why not think of ways to reform the healthcare system and health insurance companies that don't involve the government. To state unequivocally that it can't be done without the government is lazy. I feel like those on in this particular thread aren't open to ideas but simply are devoted to shoot down anything that looks "libertarian" (read: CRAZY).

Tort reform...I don't know. Why are these doctor's getting sued? Are the judgments above and beyond reasonable? Does performing more tests actually help prevent these lawsuits and do they even improve health? When I read Dr. Gorski's blog on breast cancer screening I start to question the need to mandate insurance coverage for mammography at the age of 40 (and I guess this is an old debate).
 
EatatJoes said:
If someone ends up with a catastrophic illness with no insurance, their options are usually bankruptcy (at least it was before that was reformed), or losing their house...They could get a celebrity behind them to raise funds to help pay for their bills. Obviously there needs to be a system in which these people can be treated without ending up homeless or dead. I'm just trying to get ideas out there so we can discuss them. I never stated that I had the all the answers but why not think of ways to reform the healthcare system and health insurance companies that don't involve the government. To state unequivocally that it can't be done without the government is lazy. I feel like those on in this particular thread aren't open to ideas but simply are devoted to shoot down anything that looks "libertarian" (read: CRAZY).

Tort reform...I don't know. Why are these doctor's getting sued? Are the judgments above and beyond reasonable? Does performing more tests actually help prevent these lawsuits and do they even improve health? When I read Dr. Gorski's blog on breast cancer screening I start to question the need to mandate insurance coverage for mammography at the age of 40 (and I guess this is an old debate).
Click to expand...




See this is the problem with the libertarian position....theres no solutions offered.

Heres what we get

Taxes = evil
Government = evil
Regulation = evil
Obama = Socialist = evil
Health Care Reform = Government Takeover = evil











And no practical solutions....none...zero....lots of screaming and hollering false patriots but zero solutions.
 
keale said:
See this is the problem with the libertarian position....theres no solutions offered.

Heres what we get

Taxes = evil
Government = evil
Regulation = evil
Obama = Socialist = evil
Health Care Reform = Government Takeover = evil











And no practical solutions....none...zero....lots of screaming and hollering false patriots but zero solutions.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently her solution is to go bankrupt or find a celebrity sugar daddy. What, you calling those bad ideas?!?
 
Unabogie said:
Well, apparently her solution is to go bankrupt or find a celebrity sugar daddy. What, you calling those bad ideas?!?
Click to expand...

Why are you incapable of having an honest discussion?? Those were not my "solutions". I am well aware of the serious problems associated with high health costs. I don't consider being homeless or dead "solutions". Again, why can't we discuss alternatives to healthcare that don't involve the government? My questions in my last post weren't discussed. I think those questions are valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom