Socialize Medicine

[boooeee]

Even if that's so, I'd consider it an improvement. I'd rather clerical workers or whatever to get paid better wages than see the money go to corporations or stockholders. I'd rather a system that has oversight than allow an industry to go relatively unregulated (and even enjoy legislation that gives it antitrust exemptions).

Relative to what? Insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there. In many states, health insurance companies have to get approval from the Department of Insurance for the rates they charge in the individual market. Imagine if Coke had to submit justification to each state, and get approval, before changing the price on a 12 pack.

The insurance industry is not under-regulated. It's poorly regulated. A problem Congress had an opportunity to fix with this legislation, but instead got sidetracked with pointless debates over abortion coverage and the public option.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Why should we pay the 3-4%...?

That's 3-4% MORE you could be paying actual health care providers.

?

You don't seem to understand how the economy works, or what it is.

When you buy insurance, you are essentially hedging the risk of bad future events.

You are paying for something. The insurance company provides a service, and you pay them for it!

You seem to think this is a useless business? Should an insurance company not be driven by a profit margin, why would they sell insurance in the first place?

Should hot dog vendors be nonprofit too?

 

[Rolfe]

This 3-4% isn't the point. Only about 78% of insurance premiums goes on healthcare. The rest goes on profits and overheads.

Now what does that "healthcare" include? Well, apparently the costs of the 4 clerical staff employed by one doctor to process insurance claims....

You have to pare away quite a few layers before you really get down to the percentage of premium dollar that actually buys healthcare.

In countries where universal healthcare is delivered by private insurance companies, about 95% (as opposed to 78%) of premiums is spent on healthcare.

It's not the only problem, but the US insurance industry does swallow up a helluva lot of money that doesn't directly pay for healthcare.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

Here's a few government health care employees in action, err I mean inaction:

As horrified patrons watched, two fire department workers claiming they were "on break" when one of the workers at the eatery collapsed, walked out as people pressed them to help, telling them to "call 911", reports NBC NY.

Fire department employees Melissa Jackson, 32, and Jason Green, 32, are accused of refusing to help a dying person in need of assistance, despite the fact that they were fully trained to conduct emergency aid.

This is what people are afraid of if government employees are in charge.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

This 3-4% isn't the point. Only about 78% of insurance premiums goes on healthcare. The rest goes on profits and overheads.

Now what does that "healthcare" include? Well, apparently the costs of the 4 clerical staff employed by one doctor to process insurance claims....

You have to pare away quite a few layers before you really get down to the percentage of premium dollar that actually buys healthcare.

In countries where universal healthcare is delivered by private insurance companies, about 95% (as opposed to 78%) of premiums is spent on healthcare.

It's not the only problem, but the US insurance industry does swallow up a helluva lot of money that doesn't directly pay for healthcare.

Rolfe.

Are you saying that consolidation would reduce paperwork, would reduce premiums?

I do understand the concept of adverse selection raising the cost of insurance premiums. But a huge part of that problem are the laws that limit "discrimination" and investigation by insurance companies into prospective insurance buyers. If insurance companies could discriminate as they saw fit, insurance would be cheaper for everyone.

What I wonder though, is, are you really getting the same thing in the countries with a single-payer/universal/whatever you want to call it system? In Canada, don't rich people pay extra to go to private clinics with higher overhead and presumably better service?

 

[Travis]

Emphasis added. Can you provide evidence for the "at best similar quality" claim? I thought the consensus was that U.S. healthcare is better quality, just at prohibitive expense.

Does it really matter if the quality is good if there are many, such as myself, that can't get it.

"Travis, let me show you this outstanding new MRI machine we got that you'll never be able to use since you were turned down by ever private insurer out there!"

Here's a few government health care employees in action, err I mean inaction:




This is what people are afraid of if government employees are in charge.

Of course if we had private fire departments they would be refusing to help because the victim wasn't a "client."

 

[WildCat]

Of course if we had private fire departments they would be refusing to help because the victim wasn't a "client."

That whooshing sound was the point flying right over your head.

 

[Francesca R]

Nah, it's pretty much the same caricature. Government provided healthcare lets people die in the street because the employees are always on a break. Private healthcare lets people die in the street by saying they are not a client or are excluded because they lied on their application. All the people ever saved by public or private health care just got better by themselves.

 

[leftysergeant]

Profit is not a bad thing. Economic transactions are not zero-sum.

Competition and profit motive drive prices DOWN, not UP.

Why does it seem that in the world of academia and critical thinking, do otherwise smart people have absolutely no economic understanding?

Stop that. It does not take a genius to understand that when insurers can collude to defraud the public, they will. They do, here.

Go look up "recission."

The law allows an insurance company to deny you a policy if you have evver been cancelled by another insurer.

Try operating in THIS time/space continuum, rather than in the outter fringes of Randland.

 

[Random]

I do understand the concept of adverse selection raising the cost of insurance premiums. But a huge part of that problem are the laws that limit "discrimination" and investigation by insurance companies into prospective insurance buyers. If insurance companies could discriminate as they saw fit, insurance would be cheaper for everyone.

Well, except for the people being discriminated against, they are SOL. But hey, if you choose to be born into a family with a history of medical conditions then that's your own fault isn't it? Show some personal responsibility.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is really no essential right to turn a profit in nature. That health care should be a profit center is not even subject to a constitutional mandate.

Congress is charged to provide for the genral welfare of the country.

It is essential to being human that we make provisions for the sicjk and disabled, as a community. To do otherwise would be less than human. It is what separates us from the animals.

Hospitals used to function quite well as part of the commons. No reason for them not to do so again. That nobody makes a profit that way is not a consideration of any importance. And no, the mythical "market" will not take care of it.

Government exists in large part to ensure that that which needs to be done, but which is not highly profitable enough to stimulate the "market" to do it gets done.

The market aint doing it now, do you righties and AnCaps get that?

As for bringing down costs by forming a pool, government-funded health care shares the burden across the entire population. No private insurer can do that.

Government-funded health care, supported by taxes, makes sure that ranting AnCaps cannot just opt out of being human.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

There is really no essential right to turn a profit in nature. That health care should be a profit center is not even subject to a constitutional mandate.

Congress is charged to provide for the genral welfare of the country.

It is essential to being human that we make provisions for the sicjk and disabled, as a community. To do otherwise would be less than human. It is what separates us from the animals.

Hospitals used to function quite well as part of the commons. No reason for them not to do so again. That nobody makes a profit that way is not a consideration of any importance. And no, the mythical "market" will not take care of it.

Government exists in large part to ensure that that which needs to be done, but which is not highly profitable enough to stimulate the "market" to do it gets done.

The market aint doing it now, do you righties and AnCaps get that?

As for bringing down costs by forming a pool, government-funded health care shares the burden across the entire population. No private insurer can do that.

Government-funded health care, supported by taxes, makes sure that ranting AnCaps cannot just opt out of being human.

I hope you have insurance in case you fall off your high horse.

"Sharing the burden" is not what makes a universal system attractive.

I'm open to the idea of forcing people to buy insurance, if it can be proven that the increased cost of insurance premiums due to adverse selection are greater than the cost of "forcing people to buy insurance."

As for the rest of your nonsense, well, I just don't know how to respond to it. (because it's nonsense)

 

[IchabodPlain]

I hope you have insurance in case you fall off your high horse.

"Sharing the burden" is not what makes a universal system attractive.

I'm open to the idea of forcing people to buy insurance, if it can be proven that the increased cost of insurance premiums due to adverse selection are greater than the cost of "forcing people to buy insurance."

As for the rest of your nonsense, well, I just don't know how to respond to it. (because it's nonsense)

It isn't just adverse selection - costs are reduced in insurance markets by spreading risk onto a larger number of people. If insurance in compulsory, the maximum number of citizens participate in that market, allowing scale to reduce costs and spread risk.

Some would argue the last point is one of the reasons a single-payer system should be introduced (though I tend to disagree as there is a leveling off point in which scale cannot reduce costs any further).

 

[kevinquinnyo]

It isn't just adverse selection - costs are reduced in insurance markets by spreading risk onto a larger number of people. If insurance in compulsory, the maximum number of citizens participate in that market, allowing scale to reduce costs and spread risk.

Some would argue the last point is one of the reasons a single-payer system should be introduced (though I tend to disagree as there is a leveling off point in which scale cannot reduce costs any further).

Yes, but the same would apply to the apple industry.

If everyone in the world was forced to buy an apple a day, the price of apples would drop. But would that necessarily be a good thing?

 

[King of the Americas]

Simply put...

"We should provide for Our health care, equally and without discrimination, and it should be the envy of the world."

 

[leftysergeant]

I hope you have insurance in case you fall off your high horse.

Stop that. You cannot simply come in here and make absurd statements and demand that we bow to your "wisdom." Actually, I do have insurance. Tricare and VA disability entitlements.

"Sharing the burden" is not what makes a universal system attractive.

To rational people, that and the fact that it is the decent human thing to do and that it actually promotes more positive outcome when some does use the care provided.

As for the rest of your nonsense, well, I just don't know how to respond to it. (because it's nonsense)

I would attribute it more to your inability to comprehend humanity.

 

[King of the Americas]

Is it a big leap to equate Heath = Life, making Heath Care a Constitutional Right?

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Is it a big leap to equate Heath = Life, making Heath Care a Constitutional Right?

It's a misunderstanding of "rights."

If I have a right to bear arms, does that mean if I am not provided a gun by the government, then it's an unconstitutional breach of my rights?

 

[Rolfe]

Are you saying that consolidation would reduce paperwork, would reduce premiums?

I do know that in our system (the NHS), none of that bureaucracy exists. You live here, you're entitled to access the NHS. The NHS is funded by the government and given the job of delivering healthcare to residents of the country. End of story. You simply show up at the doctor's surgery you wish to be registered with, and register. You can then request care any time you feel you need it. No money changes hands, so no bills and no paperwork.

Of course it manages to have its own bureaucracy and we think it wastes money in all sorts of ways. But then we look at the sort of bang we're getting for our buck compared to the USA, and stop complaining. Instantly.

Incidentally the village where I live is almost cut off by snow at the moment, and we're nearly 20 miles from the nearest hospital. But yesterday morning I saw an ambulance arrive at a neighbour's house and paramedics emerge. Today we managed to make contact with the neighbour. Her husband had breathing difficulties and had to be resuscitated. He was taken to hospital and was in the High Dependency unit. She's worried sick. But at least she doesn't have to worry for a second about paying for this, because there will never be a bill. No co-pay or deductibles or anything like that either. That's what we pay our taxes for, to have that service when we need it.

I know other countries use an insurance-based system to deliver universal heathcare, and still manage to keep the administration overheads down in the same order of magnitide as the NHS. I don't quite know how, but it's clear it's possible. So it's not the "single-payer" thing that's doing it, though I do find it easier to see where the savings are coming from in that system.

I don't quite see how the US economy can keep on shovelling 8% more of its GDP at heathcare than its competitors, and stay competitive. Especially as that proportion is set to increase, according to the pundits. And I don't honestly see what you guys are getting for your money that's so incredibly superior to what we get.

Rolfe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is it a big leap to equate Heath = Life, making Heath Care a Constitutional Right?

I don't know about that (or where in the Constitution "life" is considered a right), but I'd say it at least falls under the "general welfare" clause of Article I Section 8.