http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368902,00.html
Doctors 'Cure' Skin Cancer Patient Using His Own Blood Cells .....
This is a very positive and exciting development.
Obama wants to change medicine as we know it. Does that mean we will not have the US innovation that is on display in Seattle? Are we eliminating the engine of innovation with this change?
85% of the people in this county have access to the best health care in the world. If Obama wins, those 85% could be faced with this.
"Jacques Chaoulli is a doctor who provided home appointments to patients. He attempted to get a licence so he could offer his services as an independent private hospital, but was rejected due to provincial legislation prohibiting private health insurance."
Today I choose which doctor I go to. Tomorrow, someone like Rod Blagojevich might be deciding for me.
B, by what measure do you say that 85 percent of the U.S. population has access to the best health care in the world? By all objective standards that I'm aware of the U.S. spends a larger portion of its GNP on health care than any other country in the world, but isn't even in the top 10 in terms of measurable results. Are there studies that show that if you take out that portion of the U.S. that doesn't have insurance, then our results would put us at the top of health care in the world? Where are those published?
At least you have the option of going to see a doctor. A lot of families make just enough not to be qualified for Medicaid and cannot afford any kind of insurance premium so they can't get into the door. In fact, even if you have just the bare bones insurance coverage with minimum premiums, people still can't afford to go to the doctor because they can't afford the bill that will come afterwards. Anyone who has the slightest concern about people other than themselves could not support the current system. The current system makes healthcare a privilege and locks out families that work just as hard as everyone else. We are the only industrialized nation where healthcare is not a right of citizenship. There are currently about 50 million uninsured and many millions more underinsured as I described above. When we can afford to do better than this, it is shameful that there have not been major reforms. In a nation that spends more than any other on healthcare, there is no reason we can't have both innovation and a system that is inclusive of everyone. Besides, none of the candidates running for President are advocating government-run healthcare despite what the right-wing radio fearmongers are telling you.
Everybody in this country has access to great health care, but only if they can afford it, which tens of millions can't. If health insurance was not tied to employment, but was organized like France's, there would be significantly more people who would take a chance at being entrepreneurs. People would not feel tied to jobs that offered health insurance and companies would be more competitive.
Today, my HMO decides what doctor I get to go to. Usually I have to go to three different appointments across three months just to get a single consultation done. Then I have to spend the next two months fighting with my insurance company over whether they want to pay or not.
Under a horrible socialized medical system, I could walking into the best hospital in the area and get seen by the best doctor in my area of need for next to nothing within 45 minutes.
What types of advancements in ALL fields could we be making if we didn't have to spend 100s of times the necessary time working with automated bureaucracy instead of working in our individual areas of genius?
Perhaps if we weren't so bogged down with moneymaking medical structures we wouldn't have to do logical contortions to justify a medical system that makes us pay unrivaled amounts of time and money to shorten our collective life-spans.
"Under a horrible socialized medical system, I could walking into the best hospital in the area and get seen by the best doctor in my area of need for next to nothing within 45 minutes."
Sure, that's how it will work. Everyone gets to go to the best doctor, within 45 minutes. The poor second best doctor will go broke, since the miracle medicine man will get all the clients. And he'll do all that work for about $100,000 I suppose.
As someone who has lived under a single-payer national health system, I don't see how on earth you have your conclusions.
Of course you can choose your doctor, just like you do now. The only difference is that there is ONE "HMO", with ONE mountain of paperwork that you fill out ONCE, and all doctors are on your plan so you don't have to constantly call the insurance companies. ALL doctors accept the national health, so something hurts? Walk down the street until you find a clinic for that part, go in. Show your card.
Is it some perfect thing? No. But it's not like most of the caricatures I see painted on line on American websites.
In particular I don't understand the argument that having national health will somehow lead to quacks.
Additionally, if you're looking for a flexible and agile labor pool that is willing to job hop, you could do a LOT better than having health insurance tied to employment. All that does is make people loathe to give up jobs even when all other indicators are that they should move on to a new job for their own desires and those of the business. People can be more mobile.
Probably worth linking this again. I think 'One who hopes...' posted this as a thread a while back. Frontline: Sick Around the World
It has the full video special as they look at the pros and cons of various universal health care systems around the world. All sorts of interesting ideas. The usual problem is how one would try to implement most of them on the federal level in the US as opposed to individual states adopting them. The current health care programs on the federal level are centered around a great deal of mind numbing finangling of the power to tax... throwing money at the problem, administrative work at how to throw the money, and of course what the rules are for states to get the money to do the bulk of the gruntwork otherwise, etc... but never actually providing any health care themselves... private providers and local/state programs do the work. The big exception to that is the VA system which gets justified mainly with the power to support the military.
Not sure if most people pushing for universal health care federally really care about the federalism issues though. I've only heard one guy suggest a Constitutional amendment to get around them... Al Sharption, iirc, during the 2000 democratic party primary debates.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Sure, that's how it will work. Everyone gets to go to the best doctor, within 45 minutes. The poor second best doctor will go broke, since the miracle medicine man will get all the clients. And he'll do all that work for about $100,000 I suppose.
I was merely describing my experience where I walked out with the solution to my eye problem after one afternoon and 2000 yen worth of spending.
I compared that to my recent experience in the American health care system where every step must have extreme bureaucracy in the hopes that we will give up and just pay twice--both for insurance and for the benefit we are supposed to receive.
The insurance industry is indefensible--it's like me selling you a car for $15,000 and then demanding that you fill out another ton of paperwork when you come get the car or I will charge you again.
But I forgot, to most critics of nationalized health care, there are no realms beyond the United States' existence.
(Obviously, I'm not referring to Glock--he's linked a good resource). Glock, have you checked out Taiwan's system? What do you think about it?
xian... the Taiwan system was a bit too heavy handed for my tastes, especially with the single gov't insurer idea. I did really like their health smart card concept. I'd like to see the AMA work with industry groups to come up with a secure standard that most, if not all, could use along those lines. Now, whether or not it can actually be made secure with proper encryption/pin numbers/etc... and how the hell one would make that work if the card wielder is incapacitated. Every solution in this mess seems to come with host of new problems.
I found the swiss system to be more intriguing even if a bit heavy handed on regulation... and I'm generally not supportive of "universal systems" as much as wanting a system that ensures that needed medical care is within the reach of all who need it, including the poor/disabled/etc through some levels of government assistance. Part of what bugs me the most about our current system, both private and public, is that both seemed to be geared towards establishing road blocks for people who often most desperately need it to save their profits/budgets as opposed to just merely blocking fruad/scams/etc. A universal system could resolve some of that for some people, but as the current gov't programs are typically tied to some sort of montly compensation/payment and private companies will still have a motivation to watch their budget as well (even if the gov't is footing the premiums), there seems to be a lot of unresolved issues there that a system merely being universal leaves standing.
I'm still weighing the applicability of some of the avenues other nations have taken to regulate out that kind of behavior, but our unique federal system that isn't as centralized as all of the nations that have implemented them, though not quite the loose confederation style government of the EU... how much we could do, and if it would be as effective here... well these are the concerns that give me headaches on the subject.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The 85% access quoted by B for business is a real spin on facts. Its one thing to have access and quite another to actually be able to get treatment that is affordable. If you apply the affordability factor you are way below 50%.
However, as for costs, I have found faster and better treatment by higher skilled medical professionals at the same or lower costs in St. Louis, Chicago & Indianapolis than in CU, minus transportation costs. Unlike many, I do have insurance and the ability to travel.
All you have to do is look at Medicaid to see how government run health care would work here. When times get tough (i.e. politicians want to spend money on pork or corruption) Medicaid is first to get cut. Providers have to wait 6 months before getting the first denial from Medicaid. Then, after 1+ year when they finally get paid, it's 30% at best of the cost of services. As a result, fewer and fewer providers take Medicaid.
We may have ~30 Million uninsured people... but shouldn't Medicaid take care of this? If it isn't and the government cannot provide quality health care for just those who are most in need and have no where else to go, why would you believe government is well suited to provide health care for everyone?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I don't want the government to provide health care for anyone. I do want them to pay for health care for everyone. And I would like for vets to have priority of access.
Medicaid is a terrible example for one very obvious reason: it is deliberately intended not to cover everyone. That means that there will always by definition be those who it can not or will not cover, and it will by design always be an elective program on the part of the government.
A better example for seeing how government financed health care for all might be administered is Medicare, which is still not perfect, but runs much better than Medicaid because it is intended for everyone over the eligible age, without the stigma or vagaries of an elective system like Medicaid.
Unless of course you want to insist that there are some foreign governments in the world that will always be better or more efficient at serving their citizens in some ways than we are. What is it about us that makes you think we are inherently inferior? I.e., why do you hate America so? ;-)
No system is ever going to be perfect, and no foreign system will probably ever be directly transportable here. I like to think, though, that we are smart enough as a nation to learn from the best practices of other countries and come up with a uniquely American solution that works better than what we have now.
John B says; "All you have to do is look at Medicaid to see how government run health care would work here. When times get tough (i.e. politicians want to spend money on pork or corruption) Medicaid is first to get cut. Providers have to wait 6 months before getting the first denial from Medicaid. Then, after 1+ year when they finally get paid, it's 30% at best of the cost of services. As a result, fewer and fewer providers take Medicaid."
You can substitute any "Illinois employees health care" for the word "Medicaid" and the statement is still true.
John- if you force EVERYONE to be on medicare, docs would be forced to take it.
MMM... it's my understanding that no current proposal would put everyone on any of the current programs... though the ones I've read would expand them to more people who currently don't have insurance coverage, and generally aren't getting health care from these providers now. They (the doctors) wouldn't lose any business by continuing to deny taking patients under such programs. They seem to do fine without them now, and will probably continue to do so under the current proposals, which would appear to neither compel, let alone force doctors to really change their policies.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock: While you are correct in regards to Medicaid (which is a state program, and therefore only as good as the state you're in), as far as I know there are no doctors, hospitals, or clinics who refuse to accept the federal Medicare program. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know about it.
Hey MMM---Here is a news flash for you. Every American is forced onto Medicare at age 65 by their insurance companies.
"A better example for seeing how government financed health care for all might be administered is Medicare, which is still not perfect, but runs much better than Medicaid because it is intended for everyone over the eligible age, without the stigma or vagaries of an elective system like Medicaid."
And yet everyone I know who is over 65 still wants supplemental insurance because they don't want to rely on Medicare. If Medicare is so great, why is that?
"Unless of course you want to insist that there are some foreign governments in the world that will always be better or more efficient at serving their citizens in some ways than we are. What is it about us that makes you think we are inherently inferior? I.e., why do you hate America so? ;-)"
My theory is that it's the way our Federal government is structured. Our founders, in their wisdom, did an excellent job of implementing structual checks and balances, to prevent any one person or one branch from accumulating too much power. Unfortunately, the structure also dilutes accountability and responsiveness, so that when our Federal programs turn into inevitable boondoggles, nobody is ever held responsible, and the best recourse for a frustrated citizen is to hope that the local Congressman or Senator cares enough about constituent services to help. IMO, this is why so many of our Federal programs absolutely suck, and why I'm very wary of relying on the Feds for health insurance. If some bureaucrat denies coverage for my kid's hip surgery, am I really going to have to call my Congressman to navigate through an appeals process? If my private insurer denies me coverage, I at least have the market-based leverage of switching insurance companies (which I know not everybody has that option...).
In addition, our Federal system, with levels of government including Federal, State, County and Municipal, also dilutes accountability and responsiveness.
Note that I'm not saying that our system of checks and balances is a bad thing. But it may make our government particularly structurally unsuited to be a universal insurer. And I hope that those checks and balances are enough of a structural impediment that universal federal health care is never implemented.
Note that I'm not saying that our system of checks and balances is a bad thing. But it may make our government particularly structurally unsuited to be a universal insurer. And I hope that those checks and balances are enough of a structural impediment that universal federal health care is never implemented.
Just to be clear, are you saying that single-payer and "universal federal health care" are different? They are, of course, but I've never seen a conservative admit that.
IP asked "And yet everyone I know who is over 65 still wants supplemental insurance because they don't want to rely on Medicare. If Medicare is so great, why is that?"
Two primary reasons, it only covers about 80% of the costs and very limited prescription coverage. If the costs were only a few thousands it would not hurt fixed incomers but most surgerys cost $50,000 or more. That much expense would ruin most on fixed income. Also, Medicare keeps the costs down better than private insurance companies. There is no incentive to keep cost down for an insurance company as they rate adjust accordingly to costs and profit.
Unless you are on Medicaid or have prescriptions which fit the narrow definitions of Bush's coverage, you are SOL. Prescriptions costs without supplemental insurance could easily take food and housing away from those on fixed incomes.
Medicare is one of the best programs the Feds have in place but its not perfect. I believe you are on to something IP about the governments design as part of the problem. We already know democracy is the most expensive form of government. Its offshoot, a representative democracy only adds to the expense. So what can be done about it?
Thanks for the newsflash, OM- that was great. I meant medicaid, which was known (is it still?) as kidcare for some around here. I mis-typed.
"Medicare is one of the best programs the Feds have in place but its not perfect. I believe you are on to something IP about the governments design as part of the problem. We already know democracy is the most expensive form of government. Its offshoot, a representative democracy only adds to the expense. So what can be done about it?"
Well, for me, I'd like to try introducing competition, portability and a bit of deregulation (stop having insurance connected to employment; more choices for consumers as to what is covered and what isn't) into the health insurance industry before we try a federal universal health insurance program. I'd have generous subsidies or government-provided insurance for lower-income and over-65 folks to make sure nobody who wants insurance is left out. If competition can't address the problems with the industry, then it's time to look at a government-provided solution. But I'm reluctant to jump right into creating a massive new government program when consumer-driven competition has never been tried in the health insurance industry.
But I doubt there's any liklihood that competition will be tried. We seem to be on an inevitable track towards more statism rather than less, as we're culturally being conditioned to having the government (paid for by taxes on all those those damn rich people!) provide everything for everyone.
If my private insurer denies me coverage, I at least have the market-based leverage of switching insurance companies (which I know not everybody has that option...).
?!? WTF are you talking about? You're living in a land of make-believe. If your insurer refuses to cover your cancer treatment, do you really believe that you can just go shopping around and find another insurance company that will graciously pick you up. Insurers deny patients all the time. People die because insurance companies want to make money. Why on God's green earth would one of these companies, who's sole purpose is to make money, be willing to put a sick person on their rolls? All this market based crap is hogwash. Consumer driven competition...that's just junk.
If you're really sick, you're not going to get insurance. If you're rich enough, you can weather the storm. If you're not, sorry about your bad luck. I guess you should have worked harder in life (that's the republican way of thinking, anyway)
We seem to be on an inevitable track towards more statism rather than less, as we're culturally being conditioned to having the government (paid for by taxes on all those those damn rich people!) provide everything for everyone.
Do you mean actually or just ideologically? It seems like everything has trended in the opposite direction for quite some time now and if there is indeed a backlash, it might be related to the fact that privatization has destroyed the educational system, health care system, transportation system, and, well, most everything else. Maybe people are sick of competition leading to lots of profit being made in the short term, but perfectly good markets being destroyed as quality of output has declined.
...consumer-driven competition has never been tried in the health
insuranceindustry...At least not here in the USA and at least not in recent times.
We seem to be on an inevitable track towards more statism rather than less, as we're culturally being conditioned to having the government provide everything for everyone.
The observation is correct. Whether or not it really is inevitable depends upon the strength of the dedicated resistance.
*
It seems like everything has trended in the opposite direction for quite some time now and if there is indeed a backlash, it might be related to the fact that privatization has destroyed the educational system, health care system, transportation system, and, well, most everything else. Maybe people are sick of competition leading to lots of profit being made in the short term, but perfectly good markets being destroyed as quality of output has declined.
Maybe a humour flag at the end of a remark or just a winking smiley ;> at the end to let everyone know that you are indeed joking or using sarcasm to make some point would add clarity and prevent misunderstanding. I almost responded in opposition to this sinking curveball until I noticed that the X-man was indeed just having fun.
The consumer's influence is extremely powerful and has been diluted in the healthcare industry because health care is often not purchased by individuals. Legal mandates telling the insurance companies what they can and cannot cover. There will never be a perfect system, but one that favors rationing vs profit will lower the quality of care in the long-term and limit access to it.
Healthcare costs relating to lawsuits and protection from them are 400% higher in the US vs Canada. Looks like we have room to address what causes our insurance costs to be so high before we destroy our healthcare system in favor of soviet-style rationing. Getting the consumer more involved will help moderate the artificial influences that drive costs up.
It really bothers me when people argue costs per capita when people have to stand in line to get it. Furthermore, it does not factor in the long-term opportunity costs. If Jimmy Carter would have nationalized healthcare in the 70s, does anyone really believe (even remotely) that the medical innovation on display today in Seattle would exist?? Does anything think Canada would be able to piggy-back off our medical innovation? There wouldn't be an argument of whether or not Canada gets cheaper drugs because chances are they wouldn't even exist.
B, you started out this thread with a statement based on your beliefs, not facts, and you're ending it the same way. You speculate the outcome if Jimmy Carter had nationalized healthcare in the 70s, and make a conclusion based on your belief system. Why not compare countries, take Germany, Korea, Japan or Switzerland, for examples, if you don't like Canada, who did have national health care in the 70s with the U.S., which is almost alone in the world in not having such a system? Then compare the outcomes. This is not an area where you need to speculate based on your belief system. The facts are out there. If you think the U.S. is the only source of medical innovation over the last 40 years, you're living in some other universe that is not reality based.
B: Nationalized, "soviet-style" (by which I assume you mean socialized) health care is a straw man. Nobody wants it, and no one is advocating it. You really should drop it if you intend to pretend to have an intelligent conversation about this.
We already have to stand in line for health care here, and it is already rationed. I constantly have to wait weeks and sometimes months for routine appointments. And we ultimately had to take legal action in the fight with our employer based insurance company over my daughter's birth.
No one objects to doctors and hospitals making a profit (unless they are pretending to be non-profits). What we don't understand is why insurance companies have to make an additional profit from the very same services on top of that, when the traditional insurance business model is supposed to depend on investments for their profits. As far as I know, this is the only form of insurance that gets away with that, and it is a significant contributing factor in health care inflation.
As far as I know, this is the only form of insurance that gets away with that, and it is a significant contributing factor in health care inflation.
Health "insurance" is the only kind of insurance you buy that pays for maintenance. It's not really insurance, it's "prepaid medical".
B for Business, I dont know what business you are in, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with biomedicine, otherwise you would not be going on and on about how our system promotes innovation. In fact the heavy regulatory minefield makes it very difficult for new discoveries to EVER reach the potential beneficiaries. Whether or not the FDA ever was legitimate as a consumer protection agency, in its present incarnation it is a anti-competition agent working for the medical-industrial complex. Ask anyone who has ever tried to do business with the FDA.
There are many voices and resources saying the same thing. Mary Ruwart has some insights.
Americans are becoming, as a group, hypochondriac zombies deluded by the insurance companies, hospitals, big pharma, big government and the arrogant medical lobby groups like the AMA into thinking that that they are getting excellent care so it's worth the price. Most Americans have never been outside the country so they are clueless about the freedom in medical care enjoyed by people in unlikely places like capitalized Vietnam. Most of the Americans who are running the country have reached the age where they think their health is dependent upon the health care system, and quite frankly they are afraid that if they don't pamper the medical-industrial complex, their doctors will let them die.
Doctors used to bleed people as a treatment for some diseases, bleeding in the literal sense is something of a lost art. Doctors were called leeches because their tendency to phlebotomize and exsanguinate while the familiar and feared Hirudinian worm was named after the medical profession had already acquired the appellation of "leech". Now the bloodsucking medical-industrial complex is truly earning this name "Leeches" once again.
It seems like everything has trended in the opposite direction for quite some time now and if there is indeed a backlash, it might be related to the fact that privatization has destroyed the educational system, health care system, transportation system, and, well, most everything else. Maybe people are sick of competition leading to lots of profit being made in the short term, but perfectly good markets being destroyed as quality of output has declined.
Maybe a humour flag at the end of a remark or just a winking smiley ;> at the end to let everyone know that you are indeed joking or using sarcasm to make some point would add clarity and prevent misunderstanding. I almost responded in opposition to this sinking curveball until I noticed that the X-man was indeed just having fun.
Actually, I was being serious, but certainly my M.O. is sarcasm, so it's a natural confusion. Either way, it's tremendously amusing for us to laugh together on :)
This is the problem with the free market system in that in the same way a complete communist state depends on the pure motives of ALL of the people, the pure free market system depends on the omniscience of ALL involved. In a quasi-capitalist state such as our own, it is in the best interests of business to undereducate or countereducate the populace which leads to a greater ability to make huge profits for sell absolutely nothing constructive at all in the short run, but leads to a contracted economy and spiraling externalities in the long run.
The hardcore free marketist argues that everything will self-regulate itself as businesses which don't deliver on their promises or even kill their clientele will not succeed.
As anyone looking at the contemporary society can see, this is simply not the case. When the educational system is effectively privatized such as in NOLA, there is no incentive to provide people with the tools of citizenry which allow them to make informed decisions in a free market society.
This why some things must be socialized, but socialized effectively (not like the Soviet style, etc.). We needs some base level of competence in consumer and civic education for capitalism to work at all.
We can sit around and mock those "too stupid" to negotiate and fight with insurance companies for their rights, or "too stupid" to homeschool their kids. But in the end, it is all of us who suffer when the market doesn't function properly.
Right now, we are nowhere close--the markets are run by people who are gleefully gambling away billions of dollars and capsizing our economy. And yet, it is not as if we are going to toss them out and bring in a new financial class...
And to illustrate the point, how many people here--an extremely highly educated group fall above the societal average--actually understand what caused our financial crisis? Who can explain derivatives? And more importantly, who has actually done something concrete to fix the situation?
If we haven't? Who will?
This is not a philosophical dillemma. This is not about the aestetics of the Constitution. This is about the future of our great civilization, which is careening off the edge.
Speaking of the Governor, what is he doing handing out $50 gift cards to try to get people to sign up for his Allkids program? And why isn't someone challenging his right to implement that program since he didn't obtain the approval that he needed for funding, etc.?
"This is the problem with the free market system in that in the same way a complete communist state depends on the pure motives of ALL of the people, the pure free market system depends on the omniscience of ALL involved. "
That's odd. I would say that the free market system works the best precisely because knowledge is limited and comes at a price. Millions of dumb guys making choices out of their own self-interest leads to a better outcome than one smart guy making the decisions for everybody else.
Don't let the fact that the government gives special treatment to financial institutions cause you to think that it is the financial institutions that are the problem - it is the government intervention that is the problem. It's really not surprising that government handouts have the same affect on huge companies as they do on single mothers. Both are essentially welfare queens, making rational decisions given the government intervention or expected intervention. The only problem is that unlike a real free-market, where people are rewarded for serving others, the government rewards failure or poor choices (or if not rewarding, at least reducing the negative consequences of poor choices).
Well, everyone's got their knickers in a twist about this issue.
I've scanned the comments and think there are a few points which aren't being considered.
1. Millions of people without health insurance aren't all there because they can't afford it. Millions are without health insurance because they choose to not use their money to purchase coverage. In effect, they are playing the odds. It's the same way with life insurance. Millions of people are without life insurance because they don't see the value in providing for their families after they die, or because they have no need for life insurance. I don't hear a lot of clamor for universal life insurance coverage.
2. Stupid people do stupid things. They take risks and when they or their families get hurt or sick, they want someone to fix it. Our society has disconnected the link between actions and consequences. In effect, we soften people's consequences when they are willfully ingnorant or just plain stupid. Then we let them sue and medical malpractice insurance drives up the cost of medical care.
3. On a personal note, my wife died because of government provided, government regulated, universal coverage. When something is free, stupid people tend to overload the free system for every complaint-real or imagined. As a consequence, we get queues for medical care. When my wife went in for symptoms she was having, she was seen by a third-world educated "doctor" and received the full benefit of this doctor's education. She eventually died from this doctor's diagnosis, despite the efforts of other doctors to remedy the problem. Why was this third-world medical school doctor hired? It was because there weren't enough quality medical providers in the free government system to handle the demands of people seeking their free care so the government had to take what it could find.
I'm sure the points I've made will meet with the same derision and commentary that is becoming all too common on this blog. But I know that's often the consequence of free speech. I can live with that.
The engine for innovation is profit and competition. Innovation is not absolutely limited to those factors, but it is the American difference and what makes us dominant in that department.
"What we don't understand is why insurance companies have to make an additional profit from the very same services on top of that, when the traditional insurance business model is supposed to depend on investments for their profits."
I just got done listening to the liberal argument that we need to take those profits of the oil companies, yet the profit analysis clearly shows that they are excessively taxed vs most other industries and their profit metrics are in line with most industries. I appreciate this comment. Do the insurance companies make excessive profits for providing us services? Maybe they do, but I'd be surprised.
"Why not compare countries, take Germany, Korea, Japan or Switzerland, for examples, if you don't like Canada, who did have national health care in the 70s with the U.S., which is almost alone in the world in not having such a system? Then compare the outcomes."
Which national health care system should we model ourselves after?
I'm not saying the US is the only county to provide innovation or that private investment are the only influences of innovation, but I understand that we are DOMINENT when it comes to innovation.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/singlepayer_hea.html
Anyone who argues in favor of a single payer system needs a soviet-style reminder of how bad that idea is. In Canada, they sue just so they can have a choice.
Obama's plan is going to determine the fair and stable premium an insurance company can provide. Anyone who thinks that's a good idea needs a soviet-style reminder of how bad that idea is. In the long-run, innovation and choice will evaporate if we're going to put such heavy chains on the free market.
I'm proud to be an American. To remove the core attributes that have made us powerful would be an obamanation.
Do the insurance companies make excessive profits for providing us services?
No. They make excessive profits by refusing to provide us services.
Demanding that people receive the service they have paid for is hardly putting "heavy chains on the free market". It's removing the devotion of vast energy and resources toward supporting groups that provide no constructive influence on the societal order. The current insurance based structure puts through structures such as automated customer service and the requirement of multiple hard copy documentation of everything with tiny windows of compliance because it is more profitable to destroy people's health and then drop them to the government than it is to keep them healthy.
To me this is not a capitalist v. socialist issue. I don't care what kind of health care system that we have. It's the height of folly and elitism to stand on some esoteric principles to preserve a system that kills people and hemorrages money. You can call me "bitter", but I just like things that work.
I feel the same way with schools or health care or elections or any other currently collapsing vital system of ours. My problem with charter schools or insurance and big pharm led medicine is not that they are capitalistic or large company led, but that they don't work in any definable way except for making money for our superiors.
If you can show me a thoughtful argument about why it's a better idea to allow non-medically trained business people who are happy to see you die if it makes them money than government regulators, I'm all ears. If you have a better idea of how to include, say, actual honest doctors in the process of my health care, I'd love that.
But I'm sick of this Econ 101 free market crap. Clicking our heels together and saying three times, "The free market will save us all" without any attention to what makes a free market work is only cute in a chlidren's movie.
And your objection to charter schools not working in any definable way except for making money is not true of public education... how?
Oh that's right, because *your* people with *your* views have intentions that are as pure as the wind-driven snow and anyone who dares question the Kool-aid is a racist, bigot or hates their fellow Americans.
And *WE* are divisive?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
If you can show me a thoughtful argument about why it's a better idea to allow non-medically trained business people who are happy to see you die if it makes them money than government regulators, I'm all ears.
That is a pretty nasty/callous/cynical thing to say - "happy to see you die"???? Wow!
"Demanding that people receive the service they have paid for is hardly putting "heavy chains on the free market""
Taking away choice (intentionally) puts heavy chains on the free market. What you are talking about is a whole other issue all together. Still, I think your problem will get worse and not better. Imagine Obama appoints Blago to head that department. What a horrible thought.
"But I'm sick of this Econ 101 free market crap." The principles of "Econ 101" are the fundamentals that that get diluted in bureaucracy. Choice is good people, and I want more of it. : )
"They make excessive profits by refusing to provide us services."
What are excessive profits? Please outline what that means. I couldn't validate that with the oil argument and now insurance companies are making "excessive" profits. If you can't answer that question simply because they are making profits, then I would argue that IS a capitalist vs. socialist issue.
I'm sick of this 'profit is bad' crap.
From my experience with 'government regulators' of health care programs in the US... they seem just as indifferent (possibly due to a Milgram effect that seems equally prevelant in the private inustry) to the loss of life, damage, etc they cause by pinching pennies at the expense of those they're supposed to serve. While I'm sure there are some sadists within the ranks of both, I'd imagine that indifference is the more accurate general description.
While there are certainly some 'universal' system proposals out there that would attempt to, and quite possibly alleviate this problem (though with all sorts of debatable pros and cons on other issues), none of these proposals appear to be on the front burner of addressing health care. Both plans put forward by Hillary and Obama still left people in a similar boat... fighting the government bureaucrats to qualify as the regulators use every loophole and obscure regulation to deny coverage, benefits, etc to stay within budget... and/or fighting the private insurers who do the same to protect their profits. In both situations people often face financial ruin, physical harm, and sometimes death while fighting the bureaucrats... who, while probably aren't "happy to see you die," have a job to do, and if they don't apply the rules set by the bean counters, they'll be unemployed.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Like it or not, health care has become a free trade issue. Large and small businesses alike are being crushed by ever-increasing health care costs. The current system creates all the wrong incentives. It rewards moving jobs overseas where the health care burden can be put on the government. It rewards hiring illegals who can be kept off the books and denied benefits. It makes it harder for employees to change jobs and prevents a free labor market. It encourages discrimination against employees with higher potential premium costs--older workers, women, and employees with families. It requires the small business owner to get involved in his employees' personal lives to an extent that he exposes himself to unacceptable legal risk. The biggest obstacle to companies like General Motors competing in a global market isn't unions or taxes, it's the out-of-control cost of providing benefits to its employees and retirees. And that's just the direct costs, not the indirect costs of lowered productivity and absenteeism because uninsured or underinsured employees or their kids get illnesses that could have been avoided if they'd had access to better or earlier treatment.
I don't really care whether the solution is a Canadian-type system, an universal Medicare-type system, a single-payer system, making private sector insurers cover individuals at reasonable rates with subsidies for those who can't pay, or some other system. But we have got to get the health insurance burden off the backs of American business, and any politician who isn't working toward that goal has no right to call himself pro-business or pro-free-market.
I'm sick of this 'profit is bad' crap.
Of course you are. You are analyzing the health care industry as if it was the widget industry. Just add some more "choice" and we'll have a magical formula that will create "innovation". Whatever that means.
Health care, and education, are not blue jeans. They should be rights, not privileges.
"They should be rights, not privileges."
In a nutshell, D. Boon has articulated what is wrong with this country. No, I'm not saying that I'm agreeing with his statement, asserting that health care and education should be rights. I couldn't disagree with him more on that point. I am referring to his belief that health care [as well as education] is an entitlement.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights-not a free housecall from the doctor. Even so, a citizen has to take personal action and responsibility to realize the inherent value of these inalienable rights. Nobody, least of all the government or society in general, can give you these things. You have them from birth, what you do with these rights is going to determine the quality of your life. So again, we come to personal responsibility and taking ownership of your own life.
It is time to stop excusing childish behaviors from adults. If you want an education, read, or go to school, or learn a new skill. If you want to be healthy, eat wisely, exercise, sleep, keep yourself clean and avoid poisoning your body with recreational drugs. The outcomes aren't guaranteed, but you're not going to be educated or healthy unless you take some responsiblity and make the effort.
Healthcare should be a right. What do you think the 'life' and 'pursuit of happiness' you are so fond of quoting is referring to. And the whole 'entitlement' argument is BS anyway. We'll still be paying for it, it'll just be more affordable for all of us.
This debate can be summed up by one phrase:
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
The government is put in place to ensure the protection of its citizens. We give up many, many rights in exchange for that protection. When the government fails to protect the health and well-being of the citizens its actions threaten the very social contract on which we stand.
If people are dying in this country because they cannot afford proper health care (and yes, this happens every day) then the government is not doing its job. It must ensure that every citizen has proper access to health care if and when the citizens need it. Just as we must be afforded proper access to the courts, to petition, to privacy, etc. if and when we need it. I do not see a distinction.
If the government allowed people to barge into my home and kill my family without appropriate punishment then the government is not doing its job. It would be sitting by as I was killed with no power to stop what is happening. The same holds true for the millions in this country who die every year from less-than-adequate access to the health care system. The government is essentially sitting by and watching them die. Watching their fundamental right to life being attacked. And the government is doing very little about it.
That is an infringement on the social contract and, frankly, it is a step back toward the state of nature. Which anyone who has been in an inner-city ER lately can tell you.
"Choice", "innovation" and "free markets" have nothing to do with health care. They are for automobiles, or perhaps salt. Health care is different and because it is different it must be considered a right. For to live without an automobile is fairly easy. To live without health care is extremely difficult.
Choice is a red herring. I have no choice under the current system and had total choice under the Japanese system.
Here is what insurance companies do for small businesses. In my business we cover the costs for employee's health insurance, life insurance in the amount of the employees annual salary and disability insurance (because most of our employees are young with families who cannot affort to wait for workman's comp.). We also cover 50% of the health insurance premiums for dependents. All these policies are with one broker. The health insurance carrier reviews annually and contracturally cannot raise our rates more than 20% per years unless our employees exceed our premiums the previous year. This year they tried to raise our rates 43% so we requested an audit. They found the employees did exceed our premiums but only if they included the deductables which our company covered so our rates only went up 20% for the third year in a row. Yes, I am for profit or I would not be in business but the health care industry (providers, drug & insurance companies) are out of control and will put small businesses like mine into the red quickly unless something is done. Obviously, the market is not responding to our plight or we would not get hit with these increases year after year. No, we cannot just drop health coverage or our employees would go to a big business, who has the buying power to get better rates. I do not see the GOP paying any attention since most of their funding comes from large business and the health care industry. No the DEM will not do anything constructive either since most of them also get funding from large business and the health care industry. Although the DEM will talk it us to get the vote just like GW did on Social Security reform. In the end neither major party is going to do anything about it as far as I can see. Remember, small businesses employs more than twice as many Americans than large businesses. That is going to change within the next decade unless something changes. If not, you can say goodbye to the American Dream as you and for sure your children will either have to work for a government or a large business.
"For to live without an automobile is fairly easy. To live without health care is extremely difficult."
How could you say such a thing? Cars very well might save more lives than medicine. Imagine a world where things took way long to get to you because they were carried by horse. Good luck getting to the hospital on your bike in the snow. People lived without cars just like they lived without doctors and medicine, but both dramatically increase the span and quality of human life. The medical care that the average poor person gets for free is probably more than the richest king could afford 100 years ago. So how is it that all people through the history of the world, including royalty, have been deprived this thing which you say is some kind of fundamental right to life?
Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson somehow thought that the role of government was to protect people... from illness? This social contract of yours only exists in your head.
By the way, people die every day because they can't afford a car.
My dearest Glock: I don't remember posting that Frontline link, so I hope the person who originally brought that program to our attention will step up and take credit for their work. In the meantime, thanks for thinking of me!!
D. Boon: "Health care, and education, are not blue jeans. They should be rights, not privileges."
Actually, D. Boon, I would argue that education is an incredibly expensive economic good that we here in the U.S. deliver very poorly to its intended recipients. Look at how other nations do it, and their illiteracy rates (the rate for illiteracy in the U.S. is approximately 30%, far worse than many other nations on this globe.). I'm going to start another post about this, so we don't threadjack the discussion on healthcare. Hope to see you over there!
And now, back to our scheduled program...
Does anyone here really think we have a free market healthcare system right now?
Healthcare and education ARE like blue jeans in a free market economy. Who can't afford a pair of blue jeans? I might not be able to afford the expensive kind at the mall, but I don't go without.
But Momma, if you can't afford to pay the co-pay or the deductible, or even worse the $100 you need to put up front to be seen at the doc-in-a-box at convenient care, you probably won't see the doctor at all. You'll call one of your nurse friends and hope you have something that can be cleared up with something over-the-counter.
Or you'll go to the ER and have an unpaid bill at the hospital.
If you're really lucky and are sick enough or seriously injured enough, you will qualify for Medicaid and they will pay the bill.
Going to Goodwill and getting healthcare for $5.99 a visit (or even better, 1/2 price on certain holidays) just isn't a possibility in this town.
Not trying to be flippant...hoping all understand my analogy.
One- costs would go down in a free market. This is one reason that costs are so high- it's virtually a monopoly. Like I said, who can't afford blue jeans, or cell phones?
I will agree that costs generally go down in a free market.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement about healthcare being a monopoly. Health insurance is very hard to get and very expensive if you get a private policy; very limited to no choice if it comes through your employer. Add in state-by-state mandates, regulations, etc. on insurance companies.
Perhaps healthcare and health ins. as currently practiced in U.S. are more like an oligopoly?
I'm not sure jeans and cell phones are good analogies in this argument. Blue jeans I can acquire on the secondary market (Goodwill, garage sales, hand-me-downs, etc.), or I can substitute khakis, skirts, etc. How can you do that with dr. visits and prescriptions for penicillin?
Cellular started off with a tremendous amount of regulation and still has high barriers to entry if you are starting a new cell company. It's not so hard to start a new Dr.'s office up in some small town, or even here in C-U. I will agree there is more consumer choice available in cellular nowadays, but if you can't pass cell co. credit check, you have to go prepaid, and prepaid is expensive. Similar to: cell credit check = insurance policy limitations, prepaid = consumer paying out-of-pocket for own healthcare.
Trying to marshall my thoughts for a better response...
How could you say such a thing? Cars very well might save more lives than medicine. Imagine a world where
Oh, brother. News flash: we are living in a post-industrial society. This is not 1776, and we are no longer an agrarian society. You cannot make sound decisions for the 21st century by constantly wondering what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he ripped off John Locke.
And it would have been shameful, disgraceful, and completely unethical for a doctor to deny care to any patient in, say, Philadelphia circa 1776. It was unheard of.
Healthcare and education ARE like blue jeans in a free market economy. Who can't afford a pair of blue jeans? I might not be able to afford the expensive kind at the mall, but I don't go without.
Certainly you are not saying that Americans cannot afford the "expensive kind" of medicine, but they don't go without, right? Actually millions of Americans go without every day, and many of them die as a result. If you cannot afford blue jeans you will not die. If you cannot afford a nice car, or any car at all, you will not die. But if you cannot afford to have your cancer detected at an early stage because you can't afford the tests that are recommended then you very well may die from a treatable disease.
So no, health care is nothing like blue jeans or automobiles. It is essential for the life and liberty of our citizens. If you all cannot concede even that most obvious fact then I'd suggest that this conversation is a meaningless exercise in political posturing.
You might die from the treatable disease not found in the early stages, yeah. But you won't die before getting all kinds of crazy expensive treatments. If you get shot, you will be treated in the emergency room, and if you can't pay the bill, you default.
Fact is there is NOT a free market in health care now, and there will never BE a free market in health care until Americans are willing to turn people away from the emergency room to die in the street.
Luckily it seems the US is not yet that heartless. But in the meantime, all the nattering about a free market doesn't apply to health care because the fact is that people are not actually permitted to truly go without everything and just die in the road. It's clinging to ideology for its own sake.
The amazing thing to me is that "Health Insurance" has grown to be associated with "Health Care" and "Medical Services" and "Prevention and Treatment of Disease" and "Maternity Services". Let the patient and the doctor do business directly, removing the in-between layers of bureaucratic and administrative graft, and quit feeding the insurance business.
How many people actually shop for their health insurance? If you don't, your power to influence the "change you can believe in" has been eliminated. Of course, you can call your congressman and that might work out great for you. Good luck. Our current system is clearly not free trade. If your employer is covering your health care, we're all paying for it somehow. At the same time profit and competition still exist to a large enough degree where the USA is DOMINANT in the innovation department.
"Just add some more "choice" and we'll have a magical formula that will create "innovation". "
The majority of innovation in the medical field comes from the united states (I have facts and figures, not just theory). It is the capitalistic forces that influence innovation. It is not a pure free market system and we know that, but taking away choice is bad and the democrats consistently work to remove choice. There's nothing magical about it and it's pretty easy to understand and respect...or disrespect.
It is completely horrifying to me that Obama, in an effort to bring change, is removing the engine for change. For god sakes, it is not the USSA.
If we want socialized healthcare, we should acknowledge that innovation and choice will dissapear.
It's shameful that we are willing to accept the greatest of all evils simply because of our extremist ideological stands. You are basically making others fall on your sword for your principles. I don't care whether its free market or socialized medicine, as long as we efficiently give everyone access to quality health care. Plenty of societies already do this. It's certianly not our inferior intellect that prevents us from replicating that, it's blatant obstinance and the desire to be right.
Present me a decent free market system and I'd be happy to support it. In the meantime, we have a system that doesn't work, doesn't provide choice and doesn't give provide any of the innovative advances to the vast majority of its populace. If it will take you awhile to develop your system, stop calling the alternative systems "the devil" as long as you don't have a better solution. Health care seriously couldn't be worse.
And by the way, B: Stop saying "choice". The vast majority of us have no choice right now. I could say that you hate choice over and over and it'd be more applicable in a practical sense, but it wouldn't further the conversation.
How many of these socialized systems around the world are paying what we in America pay for drugs? I'm guess the answer is none, but someone can tell me if that is not correct.
Now, some may say this is evidence that our system sucks - we are the only ones in the world getting ripped off.
I look at it like our massive military - we are so rich in America that we can support the whole world. How many of these drugs would be available so cheaply for people around the globe if there wasn't a nice return on investment available in America?
On the subject of monopoly: Why don't we have fair and equal access to midwifery, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and all other so-called "alternative health care?" I have to pay my money for insurance that only supports a certain kind of medicine, so I can't afford to vote with my dollar and try other practicitoners. Because it's a monopoly of allopathic medicine. Lots of things doctors routinely do, the average person or nurse could do as well. Just one example of my goodwill blue jeans version of healthcare: I regularly diagnose my children's ear infections myself and treat them at home with garlic oil. It's a lot cheaper than a trip to the doctor, and we'd save a lot of money all over the place if more people did it.
It's because of government regulation and support that medicine and pharma are such big business. Something to consider is the drug lag-- the FDA's regulations that are meant to keep us safe actually kill more people that they save.
Freedom is always the way to go. If there were a real free market of healthcare, there would be more real competition, thus higher quality and lower costs, more treatments would be available to more people, and there would be more charity in this area for the poor.
Also, John Stossel says a lot of things about free market healthcare in his piece "Sick in America": http://youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
How many of these socialized systems around the world are paying what we in America pay for drugs? I'm guess the answer is none, but someone can tell me if that is not correct.
Now, some may say this is evidence that our system sucks - we are the only ones in the world getting ripped off.
I look at it like our massive military - we are so rich in America that we can support the whole world. How many of these drugs would be available so cheaply for people around the globe if there wasn't a nice return on investment available in America?
Do you have any evidence of this? This seems like the ticket price fallacy--i.e. "If the players didn't make so much, tickets would be cheaper." Furthermore, living expenses are similar in other developed countries with socialized medicine. However, without the millions being poured into turning doctors into drugs dealers, prices are much lower. More evidence of the problems of advertising led medicine. "Ask you doctor about Arsenic!"are not the words of a thoughtful health care system. Clearly advertisers believe they, without any qualifications can affect health care decisions with money. That's horrifying.
An overall industry profit margin of 3.9%! Wow!! Amazing!!! (This was a 2007 article while profits were going down)
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4552511-1.html
"Excessive Profits". It's just gotten to the point where it's a pure socialism propoganda.
"And by the way, B: Stop saying "choice". The vast majority of us have no choice right now. I could say that you hate choice over and over and it'd be more applicable in a practical sense, but it wouldn't further the conversation."
The goverment requires what must be insured. The goverment requires that employers provide you health insurnace. So now you don't have any CHOICE on the levels of coverage and your sources of coverage. If you do have choice, it's probably very little. So what's the great idea now?! Answer: have the goverment dictate the price someone can charge. Genious.
Keep removing choice and keep suffering the consequences. The evil bastards who are making "excessive profits" while profiting from death (that is just really annoying) has become an unfortunate and effective argument.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I know that American consumers (and state gov'ts) attempt to import drugs to take advantage of lower prices in foreign countries.
I know that drug companies have fought hard against laws that would allow the US gov't to negotiate drug prices, like Canada does.
I know that businesses make more money when they can charge more for their product.
I know that investors are less likely to risk their money on investments with lower expected returns than those with higher expected returns.
""Ask you doctor about Arsenic!"are not the words of a thoughtful health care system. Clearly advertisers believe they, without any qualifications can affect health care decisions with money. That's horrifying."
An advertising campaign that suggests individuals should ask questions to qualified professionals. What a crazy thought! : )
"But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country."
We could certainly simplify this discussion if we eliminate the straw dog that says Innovations in Biomedical Research = Health Care.
"We could certainly simplify this discussion if we eliminate the straw dog that says Innovations in Biomedical Research = Health Care."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research
The development of new treatments is not considered health care? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. And what the hell do straw dogs have to do with anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_dog
First, my use of "straw dog" should have been "straw man," but I'll admit that even that was somewhat misdirected. Busy day here... But the point is still valid:
"The development of new treatments is not considered health care? That seems a bit ridiculous to me."
Of course R&D is part of health care, but it is irrelevant to a discussion involving the pros and cons of universal health care. You brought this on yourself when you titled the thread "US Medical Innovation on Display" and then attempted to relate that heading to "85% of the people in this county have access to the best health care in the world."
Cripes, sorry for the font butchery via the clipboard.
"Cripes, sorry for the font butchery via the clipboard."
Fixed!
:-)
Can you please elaborate a bit more? I see the quality of healthcare largely as a function of innovation. That is clear by my posts. Note: I was joking about the straw dog.
An advertising campaign that suggests individuals should ask questions to qualified professionals. What a crazy thought! : )
Yes, because the drug companies that ask, "Do you have trouble sleeping?" "Do you like fudge?" "Do you have a head?" "Ask about ___________!" are simply looking to start a thoughtful dialogue about drugs.
We are a society of drug addicts. How about a "War on Drugs"?
The goverment requires what must be insured. The goverment requires that employers provide you health insurnace. So now you don't have any CHOICE on the levels of coverage and your sources of coverage. If you do have choice, it's probably very little. So what's the great idea now?! Answer: have the goverment dictate the price someone can charge. Genious.
Keep removing choice and keep suffering the consequences. The evil bastards who are making "excessive profits" while profiting from death (that is just really annoying) has become an unfortunate and effective argument.
Exactly my point. The current system provides little or no choice. Most of the socialized medicine programs in the country provide extreme choice of HEALTH CARE while providing no choice for insurance.
I could give a rat's ass about choice in insurance. I would like choice in health care. If you can provide that possibility for everyone in a free market system like is provided in most socialized systems, I would be all in favor. I would much rather have a free market system than a socialized one if it actually does the job at all.
Dear B is for Business: The government does not require that your employer provide you with health insurance. Our tax code, however, does allow the employer to write off the amount s/he pays in health insurance premiums for their employees, just as they can write off wages paid or cost of goods sold.
This government subsidy of health insurance began during WWII, when wages were regulated and employers were searching for a way to differentiate themselves to prospective employees, and as a way to retain their employees. It has remained in effect through the mechanism I described, and can serve a disinhibitor of labor mobility (i.e., if you develop diabetes, etc., you're more likely to stay in a job you hate, rather than risk going to a company that doesn't offer health insurance, or having to switch ins. cos. when you go to a new job and your "pre-existing condition" is now not covered for at least one year. Are you aware of how much lancets cost?).
"I could give a rat's ass about choice in insurance. I would like choice in health care."
I would like choice in both. I'd love to try that before declaring that it doesn't work and allowing some unaccountable federal bureaucrat to decide what procedures and medicines we can each have, and how much our doctors and hospitals are allowed to earn.
There have been over 60 postings opining about health care--what it costs a business owner to provide for employees; ought it be a right--along with housing and education; ought the government control health insurance and/or health care; what is wrong with this idea or that; many examples from personal experiences both domestically and internationally; what causes medical innovations; and many items stated as facts, but incorrect, in particular about medicare and medicaid.
Almost no one has discussed without some type of universal health care, individuals get into employment situations where they literally can not leave because of losing health care coverage or that they will not get coverage due to a pre-existing conditions. When one begins to think about this, one's right to travel is restricted. The right to travel is a constitutional right. So it might be interesting to frame the argument using that as a basis. And why should health care be a right? Aren't we a better world when people are healthy, can work, and can contribute to back to the community in which they live. Is this not similar to the argument used for all of us supporting education within our community whether I have children using the system now or maybe ever? Nonetheless, the community is better off with a well educated population.
What might be even more interesting is to read about health plan designs that will cover the many issues legitamately discussed. No one has put a plan on the table with explanations of how to implement, what it might cost, how to pay for it, what it might save in cost and efficency of care. How would you rhein in the pharmacitical companies and the profit margins? I am for companies making money, but not obscence amounts at the cost of people's health.
The presidential candidates have proposed plans, but gloss over the details, which make the difference.
Pattsi Petrie
On the "right" issue: I'm probably a weirdo on this, but, I believe that rights are things that people have that governments should not have the power to take away. Governments either have the power to do something or they do not. They do not have rights. Only people have rights. Whether you feel they are granted by god, a creator, nature, or some other philosophical reason.
The government having the power to provide health coverage or health care, in my mind, makes no sense in the context of "rights" as that is merely a government power, whether or appropriate or not. People should have a right to have access to healthcare. But rights aren't something a government can provide, merely be prohibited from infringing upon.
But like I said, I'm weird.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Dear B is for Business: The government does not require that your employer provide you with health insurance."
Technically it doesn't. Technically it wouldn't under the Obama plan.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
By the way folks, if you look closely you might be able to see how this idea could serve a disincentive to have payroll.
"It has remained in effect through the mechanism I described, and can serve a disinhibitor of labor mobility (i.e., if you develop diabetes, etc., you're more likely to stay in a job you hate, rather than risk going to a company that doesn't offer health insurance, or having to switch ins. cos. when you go to a new job and your "pre-existing condition" is now not covered for at least one year. Are you aware of how much lancets cost?)"
There is nothing wrong with an employer offering benefits as an incentive to retain employees. While the pre-existing condition sucks, you have the option or purchasing your own health care if you don't like the new employers options....for now.
Small business can't offer a light or limited health care plan that covers basic health care because this option has been legislated out. It must cover everything, including eating disorders. Do you have any idea how much group coverage costs? You'd think you'd get a quantity discount, but no. It's less expensive to purchcase invidually.
If insurance companies were allowed to offer the equivelent of a safe driving discount, I might be inclined to live a more balanced lifestyle.
It was Naomi Jakobbson who mentioned that not everyone should have a cadillac when referring to health care. I was surprised to hear that from a far left politico, but it inspired much of my thought on this.
I was just listening to a doctor who gave some ridiculous statistic about the number of treatments in the American health care system (much greater) vs the candadian health care system. I can't cite the stats and I'm working on obtaining them, but that leads me to conclude that socialized medicine results in everyone getting a chevy while currently I pay a premium for a cadillac.
I'm still a little baffled that there is loose reference to my argument that 85% of Americans have access to the best health care in the world. This was based off the premise that 15% are not insured. It was also based on my feeling that if I'm sick and I could get treated anywhere in the world, it would be in an American hospital.
I'd actually like to expand on this a little bit. Where can someone with health insurance get better health care than here in the united states. I'm sure there's some basis to and I'd appreciate you explaining it to us. Coverage gaps? Longer wait times?
But rights aren't something a government can provide, merely be prohibited from infringing upon. But like I said, I'm weird.
This doesn't make any sense. The whole reason we have a government is for protection from the state of nature. We give up our rights in order to secure order and protection. In other words, you can't come to my house and kill me to take my stuff just because you have a gun. The government will stop you from doing that (hopefully) or at least prosecute you after you have done it.
So ... is that the government infringing upon your right to kill me, or is that the government protecting me from being killed? Maybe a bit of both?
In the case of health care (who said anything about housing?) the situation is so out-of-control in America today that citizens are being killed by insurance companies and their refusal to cover procedures that could save lives. They are also being killed by the lack of health insurance which equals the lack of regular physicals which equals the lack of early diagnosis of treatable diseases. People cannot afford to see a doctor. I repeat, people cannot afford to see a doctor. And therefore they are dying.
This is a classic case of the government not protecting the citizen's right to life. When proper health care becomes a privilege, then the government must step in to assure that all citizens are given proper health care. The right to life cannot be subject to the profit motives of the free market. Again, these are not blue jeans. This is medicine. And the government has an obligation to assure that all citizens have equal access to quality health care. Otherwise the government is allowing the citizens to have their right to life infringed upon. And at that point we take another step toward the state of nature, where government becomes not only irrelevant, but impossible.
I'd actually like to expand on this a little bit. Where can someone with health insurance get better health care than here in the united states. I'm sure there's some basis to and I'd appreciate you explaining it to us. Coverage gaps? Longer wait times?
Japan. No wait times, no referrals, no coverage gaps as long as your are working or have a waiver.
There is nothing wrong with an employer offering benefits as an incentive to retain employees. While the pre-existing condition sucks, you have the option or purchasing your own health care if you don't like the new employers options....for now.
Yes, it sucks, and no you don't have the option of purchasing your own health care if you don't the new employers options unless you have several hundred thousand dollars lying around.
Incidentally, do you have experience in what happens if you don't have a cadillac of health insurance? These days doctors are expected to treat people not on the basis of the best health interests of their patient but based on their level of insurance. This is my experience from the floor, anyway.
"Japan. No wait times, no referrals, no coverage gaps as long as your are working or have a waiver."
Japan. All Japanese people who are mostly skinny and eat a lot of fish and vegetables.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0107/medicine.men012607.php3
According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000.
I'm getting the impression that our Chevy is better than their Datsun.
"Yes, it sucks, and no you don't have the option of purchasing your own health care if you don't the new employers options unless you have several hundred thousand dollars lying around."
Excessive profits. Now "hundreds of thousands of dollars". Sheesh.
Seriously though, I appreciate the Japan argument.
"So ... is that the government infringing upon your right to kill me, or is that the government protecting me from being killed? Maybe a bit of both?"
Neither. I have no right to merely walk into another person's home and kill them. But you have the right to use deadly force to stop someone from doing that to you. And the government should be prevented from infringing on that right. The government may be empowered to help you out in such a situation, but neither they nor you have a "right" to such assistance.
As far as giving "up our rights in order to secure order and protection"... I don't see how that makes much sense myself. Unless you're including almost any human activity as a "right" which would be a baffling proposition. Rights, as far as I'm concerned, are fundamental concepts that citizens should never "give up." Now if your concept of rights puts murder in league with free speech, I'm quite sure I'm not the only one making little sense.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
In Japan:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/17/health-care-around-the-world-japan/
B is for Business said:
"Can you please elaborate a bit more? I see the quality of healthcare largely as a function of innovation. That is clear