What is the current Republican position on this?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "Immunity conferred through risky preemptive treatment is nearly unique to vaccination against communicable disease, seems to me. What other social ill poses a similar prisoner's dilemma? Not in general. People have sufficient incentive w/o tax incentives to stay healthy.I make my own luck. When I was younger, I would buy health insurance in the season that Oahu got large surf. I never had to use it. I got a laceration from coral on the last big South swell and treated it myself. I'll have a scar. Next time I'll use superglue for sutures.We disagree about the "just fine" part. "Universal" would make it more expensive. That's a long discussion. Maybe later. Doubt the reason. Old homeowners will die. Old apartment dwellers will die. Everybody dies."

non sense. I shared the same surf with you I surfed for over 30 years at a high level and having lived on the North Shore serious injuries happens to the best guys regardless of skill level. The fact that you have been lucky to this point is pure luck.

Yeah. I bounced off the bottom a few times. The point is, I bought health insurance seasonally. I would have bought coverage for treatment of mechanical injuries alone if anyone offered it.

Your point on universal health care costing more again is non sense and has no evidence to support your assertion. countries around the world with universal health care pay far less.

We'll disagree here, mostly, and the strategies I'd prefer to lower costs involve deregulation, promotion of competition, and malpractice tort reform, not subsidization of risky behavior and fraud.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

But is there some government program like the one I suggested to Travis

There are. The Medicaid programs vary state to state. Massachusetts has the most generous, but in many states it is very, very hard to qualify for Medicaid. For instance, sometimes you can only get it if you are unemployed. I have seen people who have had to quit their jobs, moved in with friends or relatives, and live in poverty because it is the only way they could get the Medicaid needed to save their life or their kid's life.

Also, Medicaid really only serves the poor. If you're middle class, or upper middle class, and you're above the income level, you're crap out of luck if you can't come up with the half million needed for your bone marrow transplant. However, I don't know what Travis' income level is. If it's low enough, he could qualify.

Some people can qualify for Medicare even when they are below 65, but that's pretty tough. The biggest problem is that the government, for some stupid reason, requires a 2 year waiting period to get Medicare if you become disabled under age 65. Which is ridiculous, because if you're that sick, you need help now, not two years from now, and sadly some people just die waiting. And the other problem is that you have to actually be able to get classified as disabled first to get that Medicare. People can have a deadly disease but not be considered disabled because they are still able to function relatively normally until the end stages of the disease.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Have you been denied health care?

I have been denied health care insurance for sure.

It would be useful to note that these two terms are not synonyms.
Insurance is by it nature operated under statistical risk factors.

Health Care is seeing and hopefully being given care by a health care provider for reason X, Y, or Z.

One of the things about using the leverage of large groups, which being in an insurance group plan does, is allow the group to negotiate lower fees for drugs.

I was staggered to find out from a friend that her dad gets medicine in Mexico for the following reason: when he was covered, his medicine cost 48 dollars per bottle, with a six dollar co pay.
Not being in an insurance plan, the drug store would charge just over two hundred dollars per bottle.

Same drug.

This is ... something that bothers me. It's not just that he would have had to pay 48 dollars instead of six, but about four times 48 dollars.

That's one of many artifacts of our system that needs work. For fifty years, industry paid the price of group health care. It no longer can, since industry is slowly but surely waning. To all of the people with whom I disagreed in the 80's and 90's about the transition to the service sector economy, which I raged against, I will say it now:

I told you so.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

(Malcolm):Yeah. I bounced off the bottom a few times. The point is, I bought health insurance seasonally. I would have bought coverage for treatment of mechanical injuries alone if anyone offered it.We'll disagree here, mostly, and the strategies I'd prefer to lower costs involve deregulation, promotion of competition, and malpractice tort reform, not subsidization of risky behavior and fraud.

The thing is, we all pay for it one way or another. patient gets treatment, gets a bill. patient either can't pay the bill, or dies without leaving an estate. now the hospital's out however much that treatment costs, and has to raise prices for everyone else.

And malpractice suits and the needed malpractice insurance, while I'm not arguing that these can't be very burdensome for private practitioners, actually have no significant effect on nationwide health care costs.

Also, regarding the story of the baby I told you above, do you believe that baby is responsible for not making it's own luck?

I was staggered to find out from a friend that her dad gets medicine in Mexico for the following reason: when he was covered, his medicine cost 48 dollars per bottle, with a six dollar co pay.
Not being in an insurance plan, the drug store would charge just over two hundred dollars per bottle.

Same drug.

A lot of the drugs sold in Mexico are sold there because they can't be sold in America because they are past the expiration date. I used to live in Mexico, and that was very common. I'd see drugs, food, all sorts of things being sold that were years past their expiration date, and thus cheap. I don't think I ever saw a single candy bar that wasn't at least a few years past the expiration.

But in general, it is getting increasingly common for people to get health care in Mexico, South America, and India, and other places because they can afford it there. Sometimes, the entire cost of a treatment will be less there than just their co insurance costs here in America. This isn't always dangerous. There are reputable doctors in places like these, especially in India. You just have to find them. Of course they don't necessarily have all the options as to what you can get in a first world country just in terms of technology, no matter how good the hospital is.

 

[eeyore1954]

Aw. That's just sad. Keep at it though. Next time. *ruffles hair*

I said it in jest mostly and should have said bigoted . But explain to me why it is not a bigoted statement.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

(Drachasor): "Old people who can't work can't live in apartments or homes. They die in the streets."
(Malcolm): "Or not, if they saved for retirement, or educated their kids well and live with them, or their social network supports them. Governments displaced all of these with subsidized alternatives and do a worse job."

That's such bull. You can be the most responsible person in the world and end up homeless. I have one patient who owned her own business, but then she got cancer, and had cancer for years. She couldn't handle owning the business, had to sell it and work part time. Then her cognitive functions went, and she couldn't even work part time because her mind is so addled. And her insurance premiums were enormous, and didn't cover all the services she needed. Her cancer care cost her hundreds of thousands out of pocket, in addition to her $1000 a month premium for her insurance followed by a $5,000 deductable, and now she lives in her camper. It has nothing to do with her being irresponsible. This woman has finally depleted almost all of her savings to the point that she can't afford her premiums, and would just die, except that she qualified for Mass Medicaid, so now she can keep going to treatment.

That smug attitude of yours that if you're responsible, you'll be okay, is ridiculous. I've seen plenty of people lose their entire retirement savings - and we're talking about up to a million dollars in savings, because they or a family member gets sick. The melanoma treatment Ipilumimab and its administration, for example, costs over a hundred thousand dollars per dose.

And "educated their kids well enough to live with them." What if your kid had cancer, and you spent all your money taking care of them, and now your kid can't take care of you when you get old and sick (possibly then getting cancer yourself) because they're permanently disabled? And "social network?" You're telling me that a social network has the capability of just coming up with possibly millions of dollars to pay for care?

Explain to me how "the government" displaced this. Explain to me how "the government" caused your average Joe and his family and friends to not be able to afford hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in treatment? you're saying that without government subsidy programs, if any child needed two million dollars worth of treatment, that child's family or circle of friends (so long as they were educated and had savings) would be able to pay those millions? What if the child's sibling gets the same disease? Any child's social structure (so long as they are educated and have savings) should be able to pay for that twice over? That sounds realistic to you? That anyone who can't scrape together five million dollars is irresponsible/uneducated?

As cancer can be genetic, it's actually quite common to have families where multiple members get cancer, parent and kids.


And by the way, having health insurance doesn't always cut it either. Insurances deny patients for medically necessary services all the time. And co insurance can be very expensive. I myself contracted an MRSA, antibiotic resistant bacterial infection a few years back and was inpatient in the hospital for awhile. I had insurance, but my co insurance still came to about $8,000. But that's still a lot less than people who, unlike me who was really sick for a few weeks, are really sick for year after year.

Whenever I read posts from people like you, it becomes obvious that the reason you hold the position you do is because you have no actual idea how health care works, nor the costs involved. You are completely arguing from ignorance.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No you don't. This extreme arrogance...

Go "arrogance" yourself,

...explains your libertarian attitude. I'll check in again with you when a drunk driver turns you into a quadriplegic.

I'm neither a libertarian nor a Libertarian. Just ask Perry de Haveland (Samizdata). We part company over population issues (immigration, abortion), environmental issues, and, more abstractly, over "rights", which I see as evolved customs and which the libertarians I know seem to imagine poured into our 4-D universe through a crack from the 7th, 8th. and 9th dimensions, or something.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Go "arrogance" yourself,I'm neither a libertarian nor a Libertarian.

Just utterly and completely ignorant about how health care works. And yes, it is arrogance to say that if you're responsible, you'll be fine. That's a nice fantasy, but only that.

Do you have any responses to any of the points I've made in this thread? Because so far, what you've said except when relating personal anecdotes (i.e. you surf, have health insurance, etc) is mostly factually inaccurate.

Speaking as someone who actually specializes in this stuff and knows what they're talking about, you're kind of embarrassing yourself here, frankly.

Oh, and you don't know what the phrase "natural selection" means. Natural selection doesn't mean that nature weeds out the weak individuals from a group. It means that nature favors phenotypic expressions in a given population which provide an advantage to the species.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's such bull.

Nothing like a civil discussion, huh?

You can be the most responsible person in the world and end up homeless....

We disagree over whether the dominant dealer in interpersonal violence in your neighborhood is the appropriate instrument to address these issues.

That smug attitude of yours...

Go "smug" yourself,

...that if you're responsible, you'll be okay, is ridiculous. I've seen plenty of people lose their entire retirement savings - and we're talking about up to a million dollars in savings, because they or a family member gets sick. The melanoma treatment Ipilumimab and its administration, for example, costs over a hundred thousand dollars per dose.

Ultimately, nobody's "okay". Everybody dies. Tax subsidies will run up the bill.
(Discussion deleted. more of the same)

...You're telling me that a social network has the capability of just coming up with possibly millions of dollars to pay for care?

If voluntary arrangements don't have the resources, then neither will compulsory ones, unless the compulsory arrangement contravenes the aggregate preferences of the individuals it commands. Everybody dies and we are all potentially ruinously expensive to maintain. Inevitably, for each human, somebody or some body decides when an additional day of life is not worth the increasing cost.

Explain to me how "the government" displaced this.

Try compete against a subsidized rival.

Whenever I read posts from people like you, it becomes obvious that the reason you hold the position you do is because you have no actual idea how health care works, nor the costs involved. You are completely arguing from ignorance.

It's the only possible explanation, right? Back atcha,

 

[BStrong]

I'm no expert on the subject, either Republicans or healthcare, but I know as a fact that in the county I reside in that healthcare is available for free or a sliding scale for uninsured/unemployed/indigent individuals.

I know that the county has picked up healthcare costs up to the level of a liver transplant, and continues to do so.

The county also has a free/reduced cost program for perscription drugs.

I don't know exactly how other locales handle heathcare for indigent persons, but that's the way it is here.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Nothing like a civil discussion, huh?

Hey, you set the standard. I find it hilarious that you mock drachasor with points that are completely untrue. And you mock those who find themselves in dire straights...oh, if they were only as responsible as you and "made their own luck" they wouldn't be in that position in the first place! After all, being a baby is no excuse for getting leukemia and not making your own luck.

Nothing like a civil discussion, huh?
We disagree over whether the dominant dealer in interpersonal violence in your neighborhood is the appropriate instrument to address these issues.

Uh, what does this have to do with anything?

Ultimately, nobody's "okay". Everybody dies. Tax subsidies will run up the bill.

This doesn't speak to your claim that if you have savings and value education, you will be able to afford health care and not end up homeless.

If voluntary arrangements don't have the resources, then neither will compulsory ones, unless the compulsory arrangement contravenes the aggregate preferences of the individuals it commands. Everybody dies and we are all potentially ruinously expensive to maintain. Inevitably, for each human, somebody or some body decides when an additional day of life is not worth the increasing cost.

That is true. I have had many patients who actually can afford, or who have relatives who can afford, the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed for some service. But they chose to forgo that service because it's not expected to save them, just give them an extra year or so, and they'd rather leave that money to their family than live an extra year. But this does not speak to your claim that people should have a reasonable expectation that their social structures will be able to come up with millions of dollars in needed health care costs that would prevent them from becoming destitute (and at risk of homelessness). Or that lack of savings and lack of respect for education are the only reasons one might end up destitute in old age - when in fact maybe they spent all their savings taking care of their disabled or sick kid. Or at least, you claim one with savings who values education would not end up in that position, if not for the government.

Try compete against a subsidized rival.

Your claim is that without government subsidies, people would be able to pay for health care on their own or with the help of friends, would be able to come up with the money that would prevent them from ultimately becoming destitute and possibly even homeless. How am I "competing" with the government if my surgery costs $500,000 and I do not have $500,000? Or, I have $500,000, but that is my entire savings, and afterwards, I am completely destitute? Who am I competing with?

I really think that some people just latch onto buzzwords like "regulations" and "competition" and then just throw them into conversations like it's a magic bullet that explains everything...even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It's the only possible explanation, right?

Well considering that at this point you aren't even making salient arguments, you're just kind of stinging random words together than make no sense, yeah, that's the explanation I'm going with. Come on, guy, you can't even properly define "natural selection." What are you doing here? Why should anyone respect your opinion? You haven't said one correct thing in terms of how health care works.

Also, what is the basis for your claim that "government does a worse job?" Are you saying that people laid low by the economic crisis right now are actually in worse shape than those affected after the stock market crash under Hoover, prior to the start of government subsidy programs that address basic needs? That an our of work man, or a sick person in 1929 was in better shape than an out of work or sick man today?

I've seen plenty of patients in this scenario: they cannot get or cannot afford insurance. They apply for medicaid. They are accepted. They live. Another patient is from New Hampshire. They have a very strict medicaid program and do not qualify. They have depleted their savings due to health care costs and can no longer afford their private insurance either. They die. You're argument is that the government program which saved a patient's life did a worse job than the person who did not have government assistance and died?

Back atcha,

No, actually, I am not ignorant. I'm a financial/insurance specialist in the healthcare field at one of the top hospitals in the world. Our sarcoma clinic is actually widely regarded as the best in the world. I would not be able to have the job I am in if I were ignorant.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "Go 'arrogance' yourself,
I'm neither a libertarian nor a Libertarian."

Just utterly and completely ignorant about how health care works.

It's the only possible explanation, right? Back atcha,

And yes, it is arrogance to say that if you're responsible, you'll be fine. That's a nice fantasy, but only that.

Cat disputes a strawman. Ultimately, nobody's "fine". Everybody dies. I'm saying that a policy which leaves medical decisionmaking to patients and physicians and which leaves insurance decisions to customers and actuaries will outperform a policy which displaces voluntary arrangements in a competitive market for a State-monopoly system.

Do you have any responses to any of the points I've made in this thread?

I generally prefer to deal with people who can keep their cool is a dispute,
(Discussion deleted. More of the same)

Oh, and you don't know what the word "natural selection" means. Natural selection doesn't mean that nature weeds out the weak individuals from a group. It means that nature favors phenotypic expressions in a given population because they provide an advantage to the species.

Dawkins would disagree with that "advantage to the species" part. I was a Biology major before I switched to Math. I'd say "natural selection" means "differential reproduction".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Cat): "That's such bull."
(Malcolm): "Nothing like a civil discussion, huh?"

Hey, you set the standard. I find it hilarious that you mock drachasor with points that are completely untrue.

Example? Keep "mock" in mind while you backtrack.

And you mock those who find themselves in dire straights...oh, if they were only as responsible as you and "made their own luck" they wouldn't be in that position in the first place! After all, being a baby is no excuse for getting leukemia and not making your own luck.

Example? Keep "mock" in mind while you backtrack. It means "imitate", remember.

Discussion deleted. Well-trod ground. We're going in circles.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Robert Prey]

I ask this in earnest as I have such a large personal stake in the matter. Maybe some of you do too. I know that's why most of my threads in this subforum have been about it. As you all know no private health insurance company would ever cover me. From my current point of view the only way I could get covered is with some sort of universal health care system being implemented.

So what is the Republican plan to allow all Americans to have access to health care?

I must confess I'm a little ignorant about the current plans by the major Presidential candidates or the Republican party at large. I know they were against Obamacare but that doesn't really inform me as to what they are actually in favor of. It only lets me know they hated that proposal.

Bulletin: All Americans already do have access to health care -- whether you have any insurance or money at all. And even illegal Aliens have access to health care. And if destitute, completely free! Is this a great country or what?

 

[johnny karate]

Bulletin: All Americans already do have access to health care -- whether you have any insurance or money at all. And even illegal Aliens have access to health care. And if destitute, completely free! Is this a great country or what?

Really? Because I have cancer, and no insurance or money for treatment. Where can I go to get this free health care you speak of?

 

[bikerdruid]

Bulletin: All Americans already do have access to health care -- whether you have any insurance or money at all. And even illegal Aliens have access to health care. And if destitute, completely free! Is this a great country or what?

the destitute only have healthcare access in an emergency.
many diseases need to be caught before they become that far advanced.
how americans rationalize their piss poor medical system is astounding.

 

[BStrong]

Really? Because I have cancer, and no insurance or money for treatment. Where can I go to get this free health care you speak of?

Have you checked with your county office of health services?

I can't believe that mine is the only county in the nation to provide health care for free or reduced cost.

Locally, cancer treatments are covered by county services for indigent or uninsured individuals, free or at reduced cost.

 

[johnny karate]

Have you checked with your county office of health services?

I can't believe that mine is the only county in the nation to provide health care for free or reduced cost.

Locally, cancer treatments are covered by county services for indigent or uninsured individuals, free or at reduced cost.

Do you have a link?

 

[Drachasor]

(Drachasor): "When you look at total costs all Americans together spend on Health Care, it is actually cheaper to go with a universal system."
(Malcolm): "I doubt that. Across industries, monopolies deliver wretched performance at high cost, and stifle innovation, and subsidized goods are over-consumed." I'll look into it. Skeptically.

Tell me when you are done.

Also, actually go and look into the potential savings from Tort reform. It's NOT significant.

When you have done both of those, then we can have a worthwhile talk about health care. Until then, no offense, you just don't know enough about how it works -- nor do you believe me when I correct you. If you still disagree, then back up what you say with evidence rather than just assertion.

I don't see any obvious economies of scale in the pension or nursing home business that imply a useful role for a State presence in these industries. As I wrote before, the "public goods" argument for State (government, generally) provision of charity contains a flaw: corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of charity transforms the "free rider" problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

Social Security isn't a free rider problem. You pay into it. It DOES keep old people from dying in the streets. It saves lives.

Read the history on it.

Note the poverty rate among the elderly was over 50% when SS was enacted. If you are fine with the elderly having a lot of trouble economically, especially in tough economic times, then you should just say so. Don't try to wiggle out of it by pretending it doesn't happen. Or if you can show it wouldn't happen, then bring in your evidence.