• 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.

Stossel Solves the Health Crisis with Capitalism

YoPopa said:
You've missed the point entirely Rolfe. Stossel's point was that food insurance would be a daft plan. Finding the flaws is what he wants you to do. You succeeded in finding the flaws, good for you.

As an analogy it does work quite well. There are a great many things about health care which are predictable. In my case these include the fact that I get a check-up once per year.
Click to expand...

As an analogy it is a stinking pile of ****. Check-ups and such are the only thing about health care that is predictable - and they make up how much of its cost? One percent? Whereas in "food insurance" predictable items make up 100% of the cost.

I wish I could say this was any dumber than the usual justifications for libertarianism.
 
YoPopa said:
In my case these include the fact that I get a check-up once per year.
Click to expand...

Is this a good use of resources? I've always thought non specific check ups were pretty much useless in improving public health??

I also take three prescription medicines currently and expect that in a few more years that will increase by one or two based on my family history.

Does it really make good economic sense for me to pay an insurance company so that the insurance company can pay those expenses which I know for a fact are going to occur? Or can I cut out the middleman and shop around for the best value buying direct from the provider with the best price/service/quality? The insurance company, whether it is public or private is an expensive middle man for these predictable costs.
Click to expand...

You would be correct if the insurance company adjusted your premium because of the increase in number and value of prescriptions, in a universal system this tends* not to happen so you would be better off to pay into a universal system via taxation.

*The NHS prescription charges are approx £8 per prescription item (regardless of volume and cost - it's a flat charge IIRC) depending upon your income. Those on Income based benefits get them for £0 along with people on a low income. Obviously if the items are available OTC and costs less it is best to pay without a prescription, otherwise it makes much more sense to go with the prescription.
 
Toke said:
.

Well, you are obviusly not doing it enough. :D
Click to expand...

I so totally gonna shop around for health coverage by quitting my job and trying to get one that has the plan AND the insurer I want. That IS the reason I work..to find the best health coverage.
 
Delscottio said:
*The NHS prescription charges are approx £8 per prescription item (regardless of volume and cost - it's a flat charge IIRC) depending upon your income. Those on Income based benefits get them for £0 along with people on a low income. Obviously if the items are available OTC and costs less it is best to pay without a prescription, otherwise it makes much more sense to go with the prescription.
Click to expand...


Only £4 a throw in Scotland I think (went down in the spring). Scheduled for total abolition next year I think. Like Wales. No prescription charges in Wales now.

Yes, we pay for this. We pay through our taxes. Which means when we're well and healthy and earning well, we're contributing relatively highly. Then when we're sick and not earning, we don't have to pay so much and our healthcare continues just as it always did.

And once more, chaps, we pay less pro rata for all this than US citizens pay just to support Medicaid and Medicare, which most of them can't access.

What's not to like, for goodness sake?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Only £4 a throw in Scotland I think (went down in the spring). Scheduled for total abolition next year I think. Like Wales. No prescription charges in Wales now.

Yes, we pay for this. We pay through our taxes. Which means when we're well and healthy and earning well, we're contributing relatively highly. Then when we're sick and not earning, we don't have to pay so much and our healthcare continues just as it always did.

And once more, chaps, we pay less pro rata for all this than US citizens pay just to support Medicaid and Medicare, which most of them can't access.

What's not to like, for goodness sake?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Yes, the US spends quite a lot of government money on a non-universal syatem.

The UK spends less and gets a universal system.

Many other countries spend more on their universal syatems, and less thatn the US because their citizens don't feel the need to have additional insurance.


Why is it good to pay taxes for something, and then to have to pay for a private version as well, because the state-version is so poor?

ETA: isn't this additional equivalent to an invisible "tax", that doesn't go to th egovernment
 
Last edited:
Man, revisting old threads can make you feel like a dumbass sometimes. I did get insurance pretty easily w/out having a job, but I see how I was totally missing everyones point now. :o

The debate over UHC has been pretty intense the last couple years and it's cool reading through all this stuff again. Things definitely change, lol!
 
One of the things highlighed by the Stossel film (among others) is that even those who have insurance are not safe. Does it cover you for all the needs you might develop? Can you afford the possible co-pays and deductibles? Can you afford the premiums, even if something unexpected happens to your income? Is it permanent? - I mean, if you get sick with a chronic condition while it's in force, are you assured it can't come to the end of its cover period and leave you uninsured and now uninsurable? Are you vulnerable to rescission?

Just a few of the possible pitfalls I've become aware of while having these discussions.

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Man, revisting old threads can make you feel like a dumbass sometimes. I did get insurance pretty easily w/out having a job, but I see how I was totally missing everyones point now. :o

The debate over UHC has been pretty intense the last couple years and it's cool reading through all this stuff again. Things definitely change, lol!
Click to expand...

So what helped you appreciate the difference then?
 
Rolfe said:
One of the things highlighed by the Stossel film (among others) is that even those who have insurance are not safe. Does it cover you for all the needs you might develop? Can you afford the possible co-pays and deductibles? Can you afford the premiums, even if something unexpected happens to your income? Is it permanent? - I mean, if you get sick with a chronic condition while it's in force, are you assured it can't come to the end of its cover period and leave you uninsured and now uninsurable? Are you vulnerable to rescission?

Just a few of the possible pitfalls I've become aware of while having these discussions.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Low premium, high deductable (5K or so), and since "Obamacare" passed, no caps on coverage anymore:D.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Low premium, high deductable (5K or so), and since "Obamacare" passed, no caps on coverage anymore:D.
Click to expand...


Sounds not too bad if you've got the $5,000. Just not as good as what I've got which is no premiums apart from my taxes (and before you start, my taxes are not onerous and in fact you're paying just as much in tax to fund Medicare and Medicaid), and no deductibles and no co-pays.

I suppose the thing that concerns me is that most young people like Dan don't get sick much. He probably won't need much healthcare for many years, and in that case he's covered and the insurance company is quids in. It's only a minority of people at that age who have big-ticket needs, but these can be humungous when they happen. This minority is what drains the insurance companies' coffers.

So they don't have to deny very many people coverage in order to make their bottom line spectacularly better. They used to so this in spades. I wonder if they still have ways of doing it?

Call me cynical, but I'm less concerned about what happens if you get appendicitis (you'll be fine), than what happens if you break your back.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Can you afford the possible co-pays and deductibles?
Click to expand...

as i have posted in other threads about healthcare and or insurance, i have excellent coverage but cannot afford the copays for treatment that i need.

so i remain partially disabled. and will for the forseeable future.
 
'excellent' is of course relative. i have better coverage than nearly anyone i know and my employer covers the plan completely. i just can't afford $105 weekly for copayments.
 
Rolfe said:
You've seen the web pages I've linked to showing how the system actually works. Remember the booklet for patients explaining the choices for heart surgery within the NHS? The pages about the swanky private practices run by the top maxillofacial surgeons? Lots more stuff like that.
Click to expand...


Isn't that funny. I was reading through the historical part of this thread, and at the same time the very surgeon whose web site I linked to above was featured on TV doing some complex surgery to restore someone's appearance by removing some large, unsightly skin tumours.

Rolfe.
 
Going back to hte basic idea in the OP.

The free market is great at optimising efficient resources where the efficient provision of these resources is aligned with the most efficient production of profit. If you are adding another layer of intermediate trader into the system, then for the free market version to be cheaper, any inefficiency of a state-provider has to be greater than the cut that these people take. I believe Rolfe has posted elsewhere that the cut in the US system is estimated at more than 30%. That is a lot of efficiency to find from elsewhere in the system. These efficiency savings will only be looked for if the most efficient route to profits is the efficient provision of healthcare, as opposed to (say) insuring low-risk people and employing other people to find reasons for refusing expensive treatment.

In health care provision, certain patients will need expensive treatment. By nature of their illness, these are also likely to be less able to work, so have fewer funds. In a free market system, the ideal situation from a provider's point of view would be for its competitors to provide coverage for such people. The worried well, on the other hand are good to provide coverage for.
 
Last edited:
I'm unemployed and uninsured. Fortunately, I'm just 2 years away from 65 when my rich uncle will provide pretty good coverage.

In the meantime have you ever tried getting health care as a paying customer? It seems everyone takes insurance of one sort or another and good luck trying to find someone that takes cash. It seems they don't even know how or what to bill you outside of some docs that have a cash price for an office visit. Good luck on anything more complicated than that. Blood tests? Oh, you need insurance. God help you if you need an MRI.
 
That's the trouble with the whole set-up. I don't think there's another country in the developed world where you lose healthcare coverage when you leave your job. Where people are forced to stay in jobs they'd rather move on from, entirely from fear of being without health insurance.

It's completely bizarre, and I don't know why so many people in the USA seem to be content with the situation.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom