Which political party wants you dead?

[BenBurch]

Evil socialized medicine would remove the middleman that is insurance, eliminating an entire incredibly rich industry that makes all its profit from not spending the money they are paid on provision of healthcare. How keeping them around is helping the parties they are highly motivated to not pay is beyond me.

They pay a lot of money to both sides to keep their sinecure.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And there are plenty of non-profit health insurance companies as I mentioned. And There is no significant difference in their premiums from the for profit companies.

It's not only about premiums. Do you think insurers all pay providers the same? They don't.

Because you keep harping on getting rid of the middleman. The only way to do that is to pay the person that delivers your services directly.

Hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are not middlemen.

Fine. Don't buy insurance. Insurance isn't supposed to be a way of delivering health care anyway. You'll pay out more for insurance on average than you consume in health care. Pay for everything out of pocket if you want to. You've eliminated the middleman!

Universal healthcare only works if it's actually universal. I thought you said you understood pooling of risk? For the last time, I am not against all cases of middlemen. I just don't think we need to have insurance acting as one in the case of healthcare.

I didn't miss it. Your solution though means that governmental take over of insurance in one field should be an equally good solution to governmental takeover in all aspects of insurance.

No, it does not. I believe the Army Corps of Engineers is a good idea. It does not follow that all engineering projects should be undertaken by the government.

Only someone who has zero interest in honest debate would keep erecting these strawmen, despite repeated corrections. I believe I have expressed my views clearly.

 

[AlBell]

Speaking of non-workable (other than to ensure deaths sooner rather than later ... aka Death Panel):

Are you in an HMO? If you are a senior on Medicare the answer is probably "yes." And if you’re not in one now you soon will be.

So why don’t you know about this? It’s all part of health reform (ObamaCare). For the past few months the federal government has been quietly and secretly enrolling millions of elderly and disabled people into a new type of health maintenance organization without their knowledge or consent.

By "quietly" I mean that the government isn’t telling you about it and it has no plans to tell you about it. By secretly, I mean the whole procedure is being conducted under the radar screen. I haven’t even seen a single news article about it. I know of no place you can write or call or go online to find out what HMO you’ve been assigned to.

What do I mean by a new type of HMO? I’m not talking about Medicare Advantage plans that currently count one in every four seniors as members. Medicare Advantage plans complete in the marketplace. They don’t get enrollees unless seniors voluntarily decide to join. No federal bureaucrat is able to enroll you in one without your knowledge or approval.

The new type of HMO is called an Accountable Care Organization, or ACO. As I explain in my new book, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis, ACOs are HMOs on steroids. Like the traditional HMO, doctors in ACOs will have financial incentives to withhold care (something the American Medical Association used to consider unethical). In most cases, they will get to keep part of any money they don’t spend.

 

[keale]

Speaking of non-workable (other than to ensure deaths sooner rather than later ... aka Death Panel):

Evidence?

 

[AlBell]

Evidence?

Whoops, thought I'd included the link my quote was from; sorry.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2012/06/23/the_hmo_in_your_future

 

[Neally]

It's not only about premiums. Do you think insurers all pay providers the same? They don't.

Of course there are different plans and policies but an apple to apple comparison plan still does not show a significant difference, thereby disproving your claim that profits the cause of such a great loss of value .

Hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are not middlemen.

I never said they were. I said that unless they are part of the government and the government delivers the health care, the government would be the middleman.

No, it does not. I believe the Army Corps of Engineers is a good idea. It does not follow that all engineering projects should be undertaken by the government.

Sounds to me like special pleading then: "Insurance is bad because it doesn't add value and is an unnecessary middleman, but only for health insurance. For everything else, it's a good middleman and adds value. "
Risk is risk. Insurance mitigates unacceptable risk regardless of the source.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Being young and healthy, I can get good health insurance for cheap. I think I pay less than $70/month (there is a $5000/year deductible though). I pay like triple that every month for my cell phone.

I am perfectly willing to pay a lot more a month so people like Travis can get covered.

 

[theprestige]

Being young and healthy, I can get good health insurance for cheap. I think I pay less than $70/month (there is a $5000/year deductible though). I pay like triple that every month for my cell phone.

I am perfectly willing to pay a lot more a month so people like Travis can get covered.

And yet your willingness has little or nothing to do with whether or not the government actually has the authority to compel you to buy health insurance at inflated prices against your will. Even laws passed by popular vote (e.g., California) may be unconstitional (e.g., California's recent popular legislation against gay marriage).

The question isn't whether you think it's the right thing to do. The question is whether it's a power the government has--or even should have.

 

[mortimer]

I've looked into it. Apparently I will need to be re-rejected.

What are you waiting for? PCIP applications have been accepted in California since Sept 2010.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Of course there are different plans and policies but an apple to apple comparison plan still does not show a significant difference, thereby disproving your claim that profits the cause of such a great loss of value .

Is one more than zero? Is having two entities when one will do wasteful?

I never said they were. I said that unless they are part of the government and the government delivers the health care, the government would be the middleman.

And yet again I must point out that I have nothing in objection to middlemen in principle. I just don't think we need insurance to be one in healthcare.

Sounds to me like special pleading then: "Insurance is bad because it doesn't add value and is an unnecessary middleman, but only for health insurance. For everything else, it's a good middleman and adds value. "
Risk is risk. Insurance mitigates unacceptable risk regardless of the source.

And yet again I must point out that what I'm suggesting is to remove all risk. There would be no risk to mitigate if we switched from paying for potential future costs to paying for actual present costs.

 

[theprestige]

And yet again I must point out that what I'm suggesting is to remove all risk. There would be no risk to mitigate if we switched from paying for potential future costs to paying for actual present costs.

Well, there's the risk of actual present costs exceeding actual present revenues.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Well, there's the risk of actual present costs exceeding actual present revenues.

How do you see that happening?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, there's the risk of actual present costs exceeding actual present revenues.

Which would be no different from everybody currently insured suddenly getting sick with something that costs more than insurance brings in. That hasn't happened yet, there's no reason to suspect it will be more likely to happen with an even bigger pool of people.

 

[jj]

Well, there's the risk of actual present costs exceeding actual present revenues.

That's nothing but an excuse to try to let people die. Perhaps you need to learn the term "diversity" and what "insurance" actually means, for starters.

 

[keale]

Whoops, thought I'd included the link my quote was from; sorry.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2012/06/23/the_hmo_in_your_future

That whole article is a promotion for that guys book and you want us to take that seriously? He even has several links that link directly to his book. Would you sir like to purchase some of my magic jelly beans?

I see a lot of grumbling about health care reform from the republicans but they never did anything about it......ever......and they could have but didnt. Only now that something had been done the only thing they are doing is complaining.

Every other industrialized country has UHC and for the most part its working fine and by most metrics as a whole its better than anything we have here. So as we argue whether or not its going to work I look overseas and there it is and its working over there but somehow it wont work here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the US were more like beloved Canada and Europe, we'd have an even worse business climate, and our rates of developing new medical tech, some half of everything the world invents, would fall off to match the per-capita of Europe. While this would still be better than North Korea or Somalia, it would be worse than it is now.

Then the rates of life saving due to new tech would slow, and people would die, as the years marched on, who wouldn't otherwise die.


In such a world, you'd be more likely to die with full health insurance from government than a technologically more advanced world with US-style health insurance.


"Giving out free insurance" at the cost of development rates kills far more than it saves. Of course, other business-unfriendly policies unrelated to medical care also affect this greatly, to be sure.

So he is being sacrificed to the gods of business.

 

[balrog666]

It's not only about premiums. Do you think insurers all pay providers the same? They don't.



Hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are not middlemen.



Universal healthcare only works if it's actually universal. I thought you said you understood pooling of risk? For the last time, I am not against all cases of middlemen. I just don't think we need to have insurance acting as one in the case of healthcare.




No, it does not. I believe the Army Corps of Engineers is a good idea. It does not follow that all engineering projects should be undertaken by the government.

Only someone who has zero interest in honest debate would keep erecting these strawmen, despite repeated corrections. I believe I have expressed my views clearly.

You seem to be confused about the purpose of insurance companies. They only provide a few services but those services are essential for the function of the medical services market.
1. They assess the (cost) risk of specific patients (e.g., Travis or me).
2. They set standards for cost/effectiveness/benefit of specific medical services (i.e., assessing different cancer treatments wrt patient/disease variables, excluding "experimental" treatments, etc)
3. They offer various levels/prices for coverage based on 1., 2. and options such as deductibles, co-pays, treatment restrictions, etc. all within a framework of federal and state mandates, regulations, and "minimum" coverage requirements.
4. They act as comptroller for collections, payouts, and fraud prevention.

All for a rather low level of profit for a business.

If you exclude item 1. above, then it is no longer "insurance". But items 2/3/4. will will still need to be done and we already know that the Feds stink at all of them because of bureaucratic bloat.
We also know that the Feds and states constantly monkey around with aspects of 2. and 3. without regard for the consequences of their actions and so drive up prices for everyone.
And, frankly, the feds are the worst of all on 4, from a completely screwed up payment system to rampant fraud and abuse with no incentive to improve any of it.

I think we need to get Governments out of the way before they kill the medical service industry entirely.

I know several docs who have converted to totally cash-based clinic services [where you have to file your own insurance forms (if you have it .AND. can do that)]. They rapidly find their businesses booming and their prices dropping, benefiting both themselves and their patients.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How does this work exactly?

I don't see any major medical breakthroughs coming from insurance companies.

That is because you are not looking at all the new and creative ways they are coming up with for not paying. That is advancing by leaps and bounds.

 

[ponderingturtle]

LOL. Bought into the evil insurance industry meme? The profit margin for health insurance companies is about 3%, and there are plenty of non-profit insurance companies yet their premiums are not much different than the for profit companies, since margins are so low. Sorry to burst that bubble.

And of course the massively higher overhead is the important private make work jobs that they do. Think how many less people would be at employed if we sorted thus out? Are you trying to put 4% of americans out of work!

 

[Morrigan]

And? Medicine isn't free. Is everyone entitled to the highest-possible quality of medical care?

Yes.

If so, at what cost? Where does the funding come from?

Taxes.

Hey, it works fairly well for most industrialized countries.

"Let people die now, so that people won't die in the future due to vague medical technology that hasn't been invented yet."

In other words, [citation needed]

Don't hold your breath. Beerina has been repeating this mantra for years without ever a single shred of evidence.