The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[Flash]

......you are screwed if you have a relatively minor problem that doesn't require immediate help - such as ACL surgery.......

Eh?

 

[jtmedli]

It really sucks when people are forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs they cannot afford – especially because those people are generally middle class and productive (the indigent would be covered by the gov’t anyhow).

Yep...agreed.

 

[HercDriver]

It really sucks when people are forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs they cannot afford – especially because those people are generally middle class and productive (the indigent would be covered by the gov’t anyhow)...If you want work hard, prioritize, and pay for it, you can have good health care and live in a crappy house and drive a crappy car. That’s the way it should be.

Both of these points go together. Many of those with good health care driving crappy cars were forced into bankruptcy because of "medical coasts they cannot afford".

 

[AlexSmart]

The more you give people, the more they expect and the less they care about the means to that end.

I tend to agree with you on this point.

I think the fundamental difference between proponents and opponents of the single payer model is whether or not they believe health care should be administered by the for-profit private sector or if it is part of the public commons (i.e. fire and police, public schools, highways, military, clear air and water). I am of the opinion that health care is part of the public commons and that as long as the profit motive is part of the system, there is an inherent conflict of interest within insurance companies.

As I mentioned before, it remains to be seen if the model could be successfully replicated in the United States. What surprises me is how Switzerland's model was never discussed/considered in this whole debate. If I am not mistaken, primary health insurance is administered by corporations, but they are non-profit (For-profit primary insurance is illegal). For-profit companies can sell supplementary "cadillac" plans.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

 

[jtmedli]

I tend to agree with you on this point.

I think the fundamental difference between proponents and opponents of the single payer model is whether or not they believe health care should be administered by the for-profit private sector or if it is part of the public commons (i.e. fire and police, public schools, highways, military, clear air and water). I am of the opinion that health care is part of the public commons and that as long as the profit motive is part of the system, there is an inherent conflict of interest within insurance companies.

As I mentioned before, it remains to be seen if the model could be successfully replicated in the United States. What surprises me is how Switzerland's model was never discussed/considered in this whole debate. If I am not mistaken, primary health insurance is administered by corporations, but they are non-profit (For-profit primary insurance is illegal). For-profit companies can sell supplementary "cadillac" plans.

That all sounds fantastic until you take into account that capitalism and profit forces the desire for improvement and success. Take capitalism and profit (i.e. this bill) out of the system and you've just pissed away Insurance and Doctor's desire to do their jobs better or even get up and go to work for that matter. I'm not saying the Insurance Companies are currently trying to make things better for anyone, but this isn't the way to go about making them better. One way or another we're all going to pay for this thing.

I'm willing to bet that people still don't buy insurance and just pay the $350/$650 FINE (it's a mandatory fine, not a tax: go read article 1, section 8) rather than pay for an insurance plan which costs 2-3 times that or more per year.

Besides what makes you think that a government that couldn't even run "cash for clunkers" can decide what healthcare is best for you? Before you say anything, my roommate worked at a dealership which is now out of business because "cash for clunkers" has, so far, failed to pay them for the cars they sold.

 

[PropStop]

Eh?

Flash - as was explained to me by a Canadian, surgery that isn't necessary for life sustainment is often delayed significantly because their system is so over burdened. This person had torn her ACL playing rugby. The docs saw her right away (she went to the ER), gave her a leg brace, crutches, and meds - then set an appointment for several weeks later for an ortho consult. The ortho doc told her she'd need surgery but the soonest she could be seen for this would be six months. This type of delay is typical because there's a lot of demand for services but not much money to be made as a medical professional (compared to the US), so there aren't a lot of doctors available.

If you took my statement to mean that you wouldn't get any help at all, then I apologize for the confusion.

 

[squorch2]

Take capitalism and profit (i.e. this bill) out of the system and you've just pissed away Insurance and Doctor's desire to do their jobs better or even get up and go to work for that matter.

I know I don't go flying unless I'm compensated in a free-market system for my time!

 

[Spekkio]

Yea, but think of all the things the Navy does inefficiently that they might do better if efficiency actually factored into the decision making process.

 

[exhelodrvr]

If you allow competition, the market will compensate to meet the demand, with varying levels of quality and price available. Limit the competition, and you will get lower quality for a higher price. Guaranteed. Let the government provide for those who absolutely can't afford insurance, which is a relatively small number.

 

[Spekkio]

Honestly, the goal of healthcare reform had a lot of potential.

When I was 23, I looked into purchasing a private healthcare plan. Unfortunately, in my area the plans ran on the order of $700-1000 a month, with $5k deductables for catastrophic situations. What good does that do a post college grad making $36k/year? It's simply unaffordable.

Meanwhile, a routine doctor's visit costs on the order of a couple hundred dollars if paying out-of-pocket...and as a healthy, 23 year old male, I had to do that once every 3 years. If something catastrophic happened it'd be a bitch, but it's negative expected value to purchase insurance at that price given the chances I have to pay those kind of medical expenses. A visit for a common illness would cost less than $100, if I had one that required medication.

The current administration and Congress could've looked at the reasons why health insurance was so expensive. They could've tackled the issue in the following manner:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/26/a-bipartisan-solution-to-obama

But no, they didn't. They instead rammed a bill through Congress that effectively requires US citizens, by law, to purchase health insurance. That's not "reform;" that's ensuring a government-backed monopoly.

 

[HercDriver]

Honestly, the goal of healthcare reform had a lot of potential.

When I was 23, I looked into purchasing a private healthcare plan. Unfortunately, in my area the plans ran on the order of $700-1000 a month, with $5k deductables for catastrophic situations. What good does that do a post college grad making $36k/year? It's simply unaffordable.

Meanwhile, a routine doctor's visit costs on the order of a couple hundred dollars if paying out-of-pocket...and as a healthy, 23 year old male, I had to do that once every 3 years. If something catastrophic happened it'd be a bitch, but it's negative expected value to purchase insurance at that price given the chances I have to pay those kind of medical expenses. A visit for a common illness would cost less than $100, if I had one that required medication.

The current administration and Congress could've looked at the reasons why health insurance was so expensive. They could've tackled the issue in the following manner:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/26/a-bipartisan-solution-to-obama

But no, they didn't. They instead rammed a bill through Congress that effectively requires US citizens, by law, to purchase health insurance. That's not "reform;" that's ensuring a government-backed monopoly.

How is requiring insurance ¨ensuring a government-backed monopoly¨, since you could keep your Blue Cross/Blue Shield? You think other insurers won´t be able to compete with the government plan...I thought the government was so bad at running things that it would be easy to compete against anything they came up with.

Also, it took a long time to get the bill through...not sure ¨rammed¨ is how I describe the glacial pace of this bill´s progress.

 

[Spekkio]

How is requiring insurance not a government-backed monopoly? Every insurance company has now been told by the US government that citizens have to purchase one of their plans.

What "blue cross/blue shield" are you talking about? I never had that kind of policy, nor did I mention it in my post.

I mentioned nothing about private insurance companies competing with government plans, so I don't know where you got that from. AFAIK, the current bill has no government option, anyway.

Rammed does not refer to the speed with which the bill was passed, but the methodology. Remove just 1 Democrat from the Senate and this bill doesn't pass.

I have to ask, though, did you even read my post? I only ask because you outright made rebuttals about things I never mentioned.

 

[mmx1]

So Geico is a monopoly?

 

[nittany03]

Point out to me what clause in the Constitution, as amended, authorizes the Federal government to mandate that I purchase something. Or cite case law. I really don't care. Then, maybe, I might consider whether this bill is Constitutional.