Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Now, what news on the Rialto?

Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:29 pm

I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.

Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.

The Case for Universal Health Care

Over the last few decades, the United States has witnessed skyrocketing health care costs. Health insurance premiums have been rising on average by double-digit percentage points over the past five years, a rate of increase that is 2-3 times the rate of inflation.1 Because of these out-of-control health care costs, there has been a steep rise in the number of uninsured Americans. Currently, more than 45 million Americans lack any form of health insurance, and millions more are “underinsured” – they have insurance but lack adequate financial protection from health care costs.
While this problem was formerly a problem confined to low-income Americans, more and more middle-class citizens are becoming directly affected by the problem.
In the face of rising health care costs, fewer employers are able to provide their workers with health insurance; the percentage of employers offering health insurance dropped from 69% in 2000 to 60% in 2005. Even if employers are able to provide health insurance benefits, the trend is towards providing high-deductible insurance that covers an ever-shrinking percentage of health care costs.1 The net result is that more and more employed middle-class Americans find themselves with low-quality or no access to health care.

[...]
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:16 pm

Parodite wrote:I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.

Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.

The Case for Universal Health Care

Over the last few decades, the United States has witnessed skyrocketing health care costs. Health insurance premiums have been rising on average by double-digit percentage points over the past five years, a rate of increase that is 2-3 times the rate of inflation.1 Because of these out-of-control health care costs, there has been a steep rise in the number of uninsured Americans. Currently, more than 45 million Americans lack any form of health insurance, and millions more are “underinsured” – they have insurance but lack adequate financial protection from health care costs.
While this problem was formerly a problem confined to low-income Americans, more and more middle-class citizens are becoming directly affected by the problem.
In the face of rising health care costs, fewer employers are able to provide their workers with health insurance; the percentage of employers offering health insurance dropped from 69% in 2000 to 60% in 2005. Even if employers are able to provide health insurance benefits, the trend is towards providing high-deductible insurance that covers an ever-shrinking percentage of health care costs.1 The net result is that more and more employed middle-class Americans find themselves with low-quality or no access to health care.

[...]



seconded

In Canada, most health care cost go to administration, instead of going "directly" to health care providers

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8765
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Doc » Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:08 am

Parodite wrote:I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.

Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.

The Case for Universal Health Care

Over the last few decades, the United States has witnessed skyrocketing health care costs. Health insurance premiums have been rising on average by double-digit percentage points over the past five years, a rate of increase that is 2-3 times the rate of inflation.1 Because of these out-of-control health care costs, there has been a steep rise in the number of uninsured Americans. Currently, more than 45 million Americans lack any form of health insurance, and millions more are “underinsured” – they have insurance but lack adequate financial protection from health care costs.
While this problem was formerly a problem confined to low-income Americans, more and more middle-class citizens are becoming directly affected by the problem.
In the face of rising health care costs, fewer employers are able to provide their workers with health insurance; the percentage of employers offering health insurance dropped from 69% in 2000 to 60% in 2005. Even if employers are able to provide health insurance benefits, the trend is towards providing high-deductible insurance that covers an ever-shrinking percentage of health care costs.1 The net result is that more and more employed middle-class Americans find themselves with low-quality or no access to health care.

[...]


You don't question the reason for health care inflation? That is the basic 101 of the whole problem. It is the same reason that college puts college students 10's of thousands of dollars in debt by the time they graduate Government is throwing way to much money at health care. It has created a system system that pays for procedures rather than result. Those in charge of the health care industry know this and so ask for more and more money for their "accredited" procedures. Insurance companies try to hold down costs by requiring more and more forms to be filed. It is really that simple. So we end up with a system with out of control costs due to high demand for procedures that constantly leads to low supply, all financed by government . Paying for procedures mean that if it doesn't get fixed pay anyway.

"Practice" of Medicine is the original too big to fail. After all how many teams lose a game in "practice"? The too big to fail banks are now merely "practicing" finance. If they screw up they know that government will come in to save the day. They don't even really have to lend money or pay interest on deposits anymore. They just borrow money from the fed turn around and buy bonds from the government.Money for nothing lending risk free. No need to do anything else. Doctor and hospitals have little incentive to improve the lives of patients other than PR. And even that is highly restricted. So much easier to do the procedures and get paid money. I read somewhere recently that outright medical fraud accounts for $500 billion dollars annually.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Simple Minded » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:38 pm

Parodite wrote:I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.

Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.



I don't think it makes you a health care communist. But the problems are legion. Once again, it goes back to who gets to define fair or moral. All is well in the societal abstract...... until it gets personal.

Most people love free stuff (where the definition of free is the cost is buried or carried by "society" and I am oblivious and apathetic as to who is paying, as long as it ain't me). The same dude who likes public roads bitches about the tax on gasoline.... :roll:

Each person has the capacity to be an infinite cost user of health care, but none have the capacity to be an infinite cost payer for health care. Once everyone is responsible for the cost of others, does Fred have an obligation to tell the obese person to lose weight?
Should the obese be punished for stealing from society? Smokers should not be punished, in terms of public health care costs, they are paying more than their fair share! Should Uncle Sam hand out free cigarettes to lower public costs?

At what point do you tell the mother your kid is too premature, or the adult your parent is too old, Uncle Sugar ain't paying no more. Would "society" consider a lifetime cap on individual health care expense to be "fair" or "moral." Once the cap is reached, who will shove that person out into the street to die and consider themselves a good person? When "moral" trumps "responsible" is gonna get real messy.

The same problem exists today with Social Security, many extract more than they pay in. It is unsustainable. In both cases, the name of compassion, since the money does not currently exist in the coffers of "society," the old are "stealing" from the young those who are too young to vote and the unborn. This is moral?

The concept of Robin Hood as moral is fascinating. In formerly chic US lingo, the 60%er who "steals" from the 50%er but who would not steal from the 70%er considers himself a moral person. :shock: Gramma would not take money out of her grandkid's piggy bank, but taking the Social Security check from Uncle Sam is doing exactly that. Fred in his youth loves free schooling, in his retirement he loves Social Security, in between he bitches about his tax burden...... :roll:

As we have seen thruout the US and thruout the world with the movement of people to lower cost jurisdictions, people love to preach about "the rich" paying their fair share, but few want to consider themselves rich.

Mostly we are dealing with people's reluctance to change, after two generations pass, the new will become the norm. Then there is the excellent track record of past management in the Western governments, Shirley, the same administrators will do a good job with health care.

All that said, parallel systems similar to the US Post Office and private shippers seems the eventual outcome. You want the best and can afford it, go private, otherwise go to the subsidized provider. No one conserves anything they consider to be free.

Alex, nailed it, get the employers out of the picture first. Next eliminate malpractice lawsuits, witch will eliminate malpractice insurance, and let Fred buy health care (and/or insurance) like he buys food or clothes (from who ever he wants whenever he wants) and watch costs drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP81Je7APoQ
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:05 am

Parodite wrote:I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all

Health care is never free. It is a huge portion of the budget for any single payer country. Most of them are going bankrupt and will kill millions.

where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.

Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.

Yes you are a communist.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:41 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:I tend to favor a system of 'free' health care for all

Health care is never free. It is a huge portion of the budget for any single payer country. Most of them are going bankrupt and will kill millions.

where the money needed is collected via the (national or state-level) tax system, thusly bypassing the layer of competing insurance companies and healthcare provided by employers. Instead it is directly transferred to those providing healthcare services like hospitals etc.

Does it make me a health-care communist? I'm also a roads-communist and education-communist.

Yes you are a communist.


How big should a church become that collects charity for the sick, the disabled or those in a poverty trap for you to call that church communist?
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby noddy » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:00 am

the biggest con in my country has been the massive boost to puritanism, its impossible for anglo societies to pay for something and then not think they have a say in it.

every damn aspect of my lifestyle is now up for lowest common denominator politics - government has taken responsiblity for my health and i hate it - id much rather pay my own medical bills and get easy going australia back.

i will ignore the economic problems and the fact australia is phasing single payer out, the people who like single payer dont seem to want to hear that.
noddy
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:21 am

Not sure which countries are Anglo-Saxon, but here in the Netherlands an overwhelming majority freely votes for systems where the workforce supports those that cannot work or have not been able (yet) to collect enough savings to pay for basic healthcare and the risks in life.. like ending up in a car crash or getting sick where treatment may cost you 400K.

The idea of insurance also has its own logic that is hard to beat: even healthy responsible people can have bad luck and therefor decide to throw cash in a common insurance basket to pay for the unlucky ones.. that could also be you. Whether that basket should be one basket managed by the gvt or separate smaller baskets managed by commercial and competing insurance companies is an interesting discussion. I simply prefer the most efficient and cheap system. Could be a hybrid.

What I like about universal healthcare using one central basket is that the many middle-men insurance companies are being cut out. Less overhead. Not that I trust government officials more than financial institutions that operate in the free market using my insurance money to "invest" in high risk speculation and pay for the outrageous bonuses of their CEOs.

There is a point if a gvt, that governs by majority vote, can force people to pay taxes for things they don't feel like paying taxes for. No problem with that.. but then they should also not be allowed to benefit from services others payed for via those taxes.

"Sorry kids! That you got into this terrible car accident, it was a stupid and drunk truck driver.. but your dad didn't feel like insuring himself appropriately against such accidents. He hates the government and doesn't like paying taxes especially single payer systems.. the word already depresses him and he hates it when others interfere with his life! He was still figuring out what insurance company would be best to cover the risks of himself and his family. The free market is so much better at this!"

Yes, I'm a libertarian. Let those kids die in that car wreck and their father too. Tell the surviving mother she married the wrong guy; sh*t happens.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby noddy » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:26 am

basic capitalism that the cost of something is the price the market can bear so when the government opens the cheque book costs do tend to escalate, anyway.

i personally differentiate between accident and emergency triage from long term health problems - im comfortable with the former being free and uncomfortable with the latter being free.. areas of grey.

when their is an accident you tend to be whipped off to hospital and their is no consent or conversation, its ridiculous to then dump some huge charge on that person, i can handle that being a cost of society.

long term health problems from bad lifestyle or *shock horror* being old.. hmm. a much uglier kettle with many more conflicted fish.
noddy
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:49 am

The grey area where people freely choose to do risky things like smoking, sky diving, pot or crack smoking, mountain climbing, traveling around with a Stradivarius violin of 200k.. can be insured separately and by choice. The market can cover that.

As a smoker I'd like to have a choice of buying cigarettes with an added tax to cover the increased health risks... or tax-free cigarettes where I'm free to insure against lung cancer and cardio-vascular diseases or not. I prefer the state taxed version though, as long as the money goes specifically to treatment of lung cancer and cardio-vascular smoking related diseases.

Good thing about smokers is they die earlier and therefor cost less as aging non-producers. That should also be taken into account. Maybe it breaks even and no taxation is necessary. :D
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:43 am

Parodite wrote:Yes, I'm a libertarian.

No, you are not.

If you were you would be the first libertarian for single payer, for public schools, against banks and against stock market trading. You would be the first one.

P I have been studying libertarian philosophy and literature for over 30 years, meeting with libertarians and living the precepts.

Never once have I ever had the impression that you are a libertarian. Not one single time.

You are a European socialist. You may be a nice guy don't get me wrong, but you are as much a libertarian as Sarah Palin is a Muslim.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:45 am

Parodite wrote:How big should a church become that collects charity for the sick, the disabled or those in a poverty trap for you to call that church communist?

As long as the Church is not a state I couldn't care less.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:16 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:How big should a church become that collects charity for the sick, the disabled or those in a poverty trap for you to call that church communist?

As long as the Church is not a state I couldn't care less.


Yes... I thought that would be the case. ;) You don't want people outside your faith community to collect your money to take care of people who may need it but are not of your faith community either.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:21 pm

Parodite wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:How big should a church become that collects charity for the sick, the disabled or those in a poverty trap for you to call that church communist?

As long as the Church is not a state I couldn't care less.


Yes... I thought that would be the case. ;) You don't want people outside your faith community to collect your money to take care of people who may need it but are not of your faith community either.

Quite wrong P.

Government does almost no poverty relief work whatsoever, as a percentage of government size. You are creating a false choice. A red herring. 95% of people can fend for themselves just fine. We don't need 40% of the economy being government to take care of 5% of the population. It's a fundamental innumeracy in your argument.

You do not need single payer to take care of the poor, at all. You just need a benefit for the poor. 95% of people can pay for their own hc. 95% of people can pay for their kid's education. We don't need to socialize 100% of those activities to help the 5%. Let the 95% manage their own business and we'll come up with a subsidy for the 5%.

You are exhibiting no libertarian thinking whatsoever.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:39 pm

Mr. P., throwing around numbers without references does not work for me.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:12 pm

1) Government spending as % of GDP: 40

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ ... chart.html

2) Uninsured in America: approx 30-35 million (10%)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168821/unins ... drops.aspx

Now, 10% do not have insurance. We know many of them can "afford" it, but choose not to pay because they don't think it's worth it, but it's nearly impossible to determine how many. So we'll split the difference, ie 1/2 cannot afford it. So back to 95% can take care of themselves.

3) Public School costs are all over the map, but regardless PS are paid for by taxes not magic money trees at the state capitol. For most people the government takes their money and pays for the schooling, which means that if the government did not take the money they could pay for schooling of their own. My experience is that public schooling costs are less than health insurance costs per person, so the percentages of people should be at least the same in terms of who can afford it. IE 95%.

So your position is that 40% of the economy is needed to take care of 5% of the population. I don't believe 40% of the economy is needed to take care of the 5%.

Hopefully the numerical problems with your argument are becoming obvious.

None of your thinking is libertarian, at all.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Parodite » Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:33 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:So your position is that 40% of the economy is needed to take care of 5% of the population. I don't believe 40% of the economy is needed to take care of the 5%.


What makes you think this is my position? I nowhere mentioned any numbers.

My position is that one of the greatest libertarians and economists of all time wants to provide universal social security for all using negative income tax because it saves loads on unnecessary overhead, gvt interference included and I support the idea. It saves money and frees many people to do more useful work. Same argument can be made for universal basic healthcare insurance.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Boeing disintermediates insurers

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Boeing will just pay for employee healthcare directly. A very good move IMHO. I like anything which disrupts the healthcare cartel.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/ ... ealth-care
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Typhoon » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:27 pm

WSJ | Supreme Court Upholds Obama’s Health-Law Subsidies

SCOTUS Justices decide tax credits can go to people in all states, including those using federal HealthCare.gov
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14717
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:58 pm

Parodite wrote:How big should a church become that collects charity for the sick, the disabled or those in a poverty trap for you to call that church communist?

Churches aren't governments so can't be communist in that sense. And somebody caring for the poor/sick is not the same as government takeover of an industry.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:00 pm

Parodite wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:So your position is that 40% of the economy is needed to take care of 5% of the population. I don't believe 40% of the economy is needed to take care of the 5%.


What makes you think this is my position? I nowhere mentioned any numbers.

My position is that one of the greatest libertarians and economists of all time wants to provide universal social security for all using negative income tax because it saves loads on unnecessary overhead, gvt interference included and I support the idea. It saves money and frees many people to do more useful work. Same argument can be made for universal basic healthcare insurance.

No it can't.

Or rather, if you can argue gov't guarantee of any product or market you can argue for them all. Which is communist.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Typhoon » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:32 am

The purpose of universal health care insurance is to mutualize risk across society,
to keep a family from being bankrupted by catastrophic healthcare costs.

However, here's an instructive anecdotal observation.

As I mentioned some time ago, I was diagnosed with an exceptionally rare condition that is progressive and eventually fatal.
However, there is now an off-label experimental treatment that slows the progression.
Sometimes dramatically so.

A N Am friend of mind pointed out a so-called support group on social media.
Joined using his account to have a look [as I don't have any social media accounts, having social media friends here is, well, too complicated].

As it is in English, the proportion of [the small number of] members reflects the population of the English speaking world.
So most are from the USA.

For posters from the USA, the major concern is not the condition itself, but how to get their health insurance to pay for the above mentioned treatment.
The time and effort that they, and their attending physicians, have to expend in such an adversarial system can only be described by an outsider as phenomenal,
or more accurately as jaw dropping insane.
A positive decision in favour of the patient is not always the case.
One unfortunate individual has just started treatment, for some reason had to switch insurer, and now had to go through the same adversarial process all over again.

As a practical [life and death] matter, I'm very glad and grateful that I did not have deal with such issues and was able to proceed directly to treatment after the differential diagnosis was established.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14717
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:05 am

Typhoon wrote:The purpose of universal health care insurance is to mutualize risk across society,
to keep a family from being bankrupted by catastrophic healthcare costs.

No it isn't. There is no need for single payer to mitigate those risks.

However, here's an instructive anecdotal observation.

As I mentioned some time ago, I was diagnosed with an exceptionally rare condition that is progressive and eventually fatal.
However, there is now an off-label experimental treatment that slows the progression.
Sometimes dramatically so.

A N Am friend of mind pointed out a so-called support group on social media.
Joined using his account to have a look [as I don't have any social media accounts, having social media friends here is, well, too complicated].

As it is in English, the proportion of [the small number of] members reflects the population of the English speaking world.
So most are from the USA.

For posters from the USA, the major concern is not the condition itself, but how to get their health insurance to pay for the above mentioned treatment.
The time and effort that they, and their attending physicians, have to expend in such an adversarial system can only be described by an outsider as phenomenal,
or more accurately as jaw dropping insane.
A positive decision in favour of the patient is not always the case.
One unfortunate individual has just started treatment, for some reason had to switch insurer, and now had to go through the same adversarial process all over again.

As a practical [life and death] matter, I'm very glad and grateful that I did not have deal with such issues and was able to proceed directly to treatment after the differential diagnosis was established.

This is not in support of your point, it actually negates your point. Controversial treatments are denied by both government and private insurance. As far as my research when a gov't denies a treatment there is no alternative left except out of pocket. When a private insurer denies a treatment you can look for another insurance company at least before going out of pocket.

Eg my mother is on Medicare, but her back treatment is not covered by Medicare, so we are paying out of pocket. Some private insurance covers this treatment, some do not. So the private sector, again, provides choice.

This man died because the gov't would not cover his treatment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 941392.stm

Anthony Wilson, the music mogul behind some of Manchester's most successful bands, has died aged 57.

Doctors had recommended he take the drug Sutent after chemotherapy failed to beat the disease, but the NHS refused to fund the £3,500-a-month treatment.



So you have a nothingburger.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:01 pm

Medical care in the US is not a free market. It is a cartel with price collusion by the government, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry. Prices are fixed; there is no competition. Smart people get their hips replaced in Thailand or India. WTF, you get a Thai or Indian surgeon in the US anyway (my Paki pulmanologist is great!) .

Obamacare is a strategy where the insurance companies are encouraged to fund the destruction of this cartel. The end game is single payer, which works well in every country but the US. This is why the GOP refuses to challenge Obamacre or fight for a free market healthcare system. Maximum current graft for minimal current pain.

No traditional jobs, no employer funded insurance payments. As people are pushed into Über and other contract labor traditional employee benefits disappear. When everyone is squeezed into single payer, the pressure will be on the providers and the cartel will crumble. A new free market insurance system will arise, but Obamacare needs to break the cartel first.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Universal Health Care Pro/Con

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:24 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Medical care in the US is not a free market.

Boy, are you right about that. But it will be soon.

Obamacare is a strategy where the insurance companies are encouraged to fund the destruction of this cartel.

No, obamacare is not a strategy at all. It is a frankenstien cobbled together after the Democrats lost the MA Ted Kennedy seat and could no longer pass single payer. It was passed so they could say they passed something. Nobody planned for it, at all.

The end game is single payer, which works well in every country but the US.

Almost every single payer country is going bankrupt, none of them can blame tax cuts for the rich or defense spending if you know what I mean.

obama said our single payer, Medicare, was going bankrupt and cut nearly a trillion dollars from it, which according to Democrats will kill millions of people. So I will say no to your death camp programs.

This is why the GOP refuses to challenge Obamacre or fight for a free market healthcare system. Maximum current graft for minimal current pain.

The GOP keeps winning elections thanks to obamacare, we won't repeal it until we win 60% + across the board legislatively and win the WH. Then it is just one of so many Democrat programs that is headed to the dustbin.

Should be about 18 months from now.

No traditional jobs, no employer funded insurance payments. As people are pushed into Über and other contract labor traditional employee benefits disappear. When everyone is squeezed into single payer, the pressure will be on the providers and the cartel will crumble. A new free market insurance system will arise, but Obamacare needs to break the cartel first.

Hold your breath on that, let me know what happens.

With 60% of the government and the most left wing political environment in history, Democrats failed to pass single payer. We will probably never see a Democrat majority ever again, but we certainly will never see a Democrat supermajority again.

I will bet you 10 million dollars the GOP will never pass single payer.

I just checked HRCs website, and no mention of health care at all is to be found. Not obamacare or single payer. Single payer is like gun control, the Democrats are/have abandoned the idea due to the electoral punishment.

Half the Democrat Senators who voted for obamacare are no longer in office.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13629
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Next

Return to Finance and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest