Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Wrath of Dagon]

Apparently the leading plan right now is to break up employer funded insurance and route money directly to individuals to buy their own insurance: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22087.html

 

Don't know how well it'll work, they were raising my premiums 25% a year when I bought my own insurance.

[taks]

Don't know how well it'll work, they were raising my premiums 25% a year when I bought my own insurance.

first, the premium you paid was more than what you paid with your employer, but the actual premium your employer paid was MUCH higher. typically employees only pay 10% to 25% of the premium (perhaps more in a smaller company). this is because insurance companies accept everyone, regardless of risk, into company paid programs. they can afford this, sort of, by spreading the risk around to all the employees in the big group plans. next, think about this for a minute: now, insurance companies will be guaranteed payment for every employee in the US. demand suddenly goes through the roof (everyone can afford it now), so what happens according to the law of supply and demand? hint: when you "give" everyone money, that money becomes worthless. something similar happened in gold rush towns (with all products). the idiots in charge do not understand basic economic theory, period. they will bankrupt us.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Don't know how well it'll work, they were raising my premiums 25% a year when I bought my own insurance.

first, the premium you paid was more than what you paid with your employer, but the actual premium your employer paid was MUCH higher. typically employees only pay 10% to 25% of the premium (perhaps more in a smaller company). this is because insurance companies accept everyone, regardless of risk, into company paid programs. they can afford this, sort of, by spreading the risk around to all the employees in the big group plans. next, think about this for a minute: now, insurance companies will be guaranteed payment for every employee in the US. demand suddenly goes through the roof (everyone can afford it now), so what happens according to the law of supply and demand? hint: when you "give" everyone money, that money becomes worthless. something similar happened in gold rush towns (with all products). the idiots in charge do not understand basic economic theory, period. they will bankrupt us.

 

taks

 

With respect for your usual good sense, you're talking balls. That simply hasn't happened in the UK.

[Enoch]

Most such ideas involve the consumers forming their own pools of coverage, and allowing the providers to bid on coverage for the entire pool. This is essentially just like the current employer-provided model, but without the involvement of employers. (The tradition of employment-based health coverage in the U.S. is a significant inefficiency in the labor market, as it is a major disincentive for people to change jobs or start their own business.) Taks' "gold rush" analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons, chief among them being that the main upward pressure on prices in gold rush towns wasn't rich buyers, it was monopolistic or oligopolistic/collusive sellers. With multiple suppliers competing on price (as you have in the US health insurance market), the price increase corresponding to an outward shift in demand would be limited to the degree to which the supply curve is upward-sloping. (Which would be driven indirectly by the increase in the cost of medical services as more people use them. Long-term, the hope is that universal coverage would increase the use of preventatitve care and decrease aggregate per-person costs.)

[Walsingham]

Something I think would be interesting would be to compare the preventative behaviours in state funded and non-state funded nations. Exercise, obesity, smoking etc. 'Logic' would dictate that where an individual is responsible directly for their own costs they would do more to reduce those costs.

[Enoch]

What logic misses is that financial motivations are generally not the primary motivation for people to do things to improve their health. People don't say "I'm going to go jogging today so that I won't need a $40,000 coronary bypass operation in 20 years." They say "I'm going jogging so that I won't be such a lardass" or "I'm going jogging because I don't want to die of a heart attack."

 

Financial concerns can, however, be a barrier to getting things like regular checkups and assorted minor treatments. The thinking is that if more people would do stuff like this, illnesses could be caught earlier when they are far cheaper to treat.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's actually debatable, in a lot of cases it leads to over diagnosis and a lot of unnecessary treatments. The cost crisis is in catastrophic care, not in routine care. Here are some interesting political insights: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22155.html

[taks]

With respect for your usual good sense, you're talking balls. That simply hasn't happened in the UK.

excuse me? how do you know that if you don't pay? the system you have is not comparable to what i was referring to anyway. YOU are talking balls.

 

^wrath of dagon: what compassion misses is the actual logic that compassion refuses to understand or admit. people are not the ones that choose more medical because they can afford it (though some will, they are not the bulk of the problem, nor what i was referring to).

 

taks

Edited May 6, 2009 by taks

[taks]

any, and all, socialist programs will eventually require rationing. that is a fact of life that results from the law of supply and demand. health care is no different just because you want it to be or because it is necessary.

 

taks

[Asol]

With respect for your usual good sense, you're talking balls. That simply hasn't happened in the UK.

 

I meant to be done with this subject but I can't get over the attitude of entitlement here. The standing budget outline only covers 2/3'ds the projected cost with the remainder needing to materialize out of already monumental deficet spending. How can that tax money be treated as if it is unspoken for in the first place when we are piling debt to the moon? The completely unensured poor human beings who god forbid have to face reality on their own devices are only in the ball park of 15% or so of the people and realisticly the bottom 15% in productivity, taking on yet another huge government boondoggle to bandaid that is a net loss for the general population, its an impoverishing move.

 

As I say, epidemiology says you aren't a discrete organism. You're a species. So if I understand correctly then you can be as selfish as you like and still support nationalised health.

 

Well it is dubious to assume any interest in this subject is selfless. Demanding free stuff from a broke community institution is hardly selfless.

I do not go out and buy a new jet ski to cheer myself up after missing a couple mortgage payments, if you believe a government can make a move like that work its only because you want to be complicient and beneficiary to a robbery in some other quarter.

 

The victim without advocate being the general youth and future generations, in 19xx i left highschool and after a couple months had a $8 an hour job in a bakery, back then it was reasonably comfortable money believe it or not, todays kids can probably go into debt living out of a used car and the inflationary effects of the higher gear of borrowing we have been in since last november are not even being felt yet. Of course people are relentless in their ability to not give a sh!t about inflation, where its coming from and what you are borrowing against.

 

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Asol

[Nightshape]

Personally, I think the American healthcare system is GREAT as it is. If poor people cant get medical treatment, they will slowly but surely die out until there is not a single pesky poor person left. And by then, we will have an army of solid-gold robots to do our chores for us, so the grass will still be trimmed and the garbage taken away. And, you can safely buy all the smack you want from the internet and have it delieverd right to your door instead of having to risk being mugged when trying to score some in the bad parts of town. Everybody wins.

 

 

Its not like here in Sweden were we just hand out free kidey transplants to everyone who wants one. I cant even pay extra so I wont get one from a black person.

 

[Meshugger]

With respect for your usual good sense, you're talking balls. That simply hasn't happened in the UK.

 

I meant to be done with this subject but I can't get over the attitude of entitlement here. The standing budget outline only covers 2/3'ds the projected cost with the remainder needing to materialize out of already monumental deficet spending. How can that tax money be treated as if it is unspoken for in the first place when we are piling debt to the moon? The completely unensured poor human beings who god forbid have to face reality on their own devices are only in the ball park of 15% or so of the people and realisticly the bottom 15% in productivity, taking on yet another huge government boondoggle to bandaid that is a net loss for the general population, its an impoverishing move.

 

As I say, epidemiology says you aren't a discrete organism. You're a species. So if I understand correctly then you can be as selfish as you like and still support nationalised health.

 

Well it is dubious to assume any interest in this subject is selfless. Demanding free stuff from a broke community institution is hardly selfless.

I do not go out and buy a new jet ski to cheer myself up after missing a couple mortgage payments, if you believe a government can make a move like that work its only because you want to be complicient and beneficiary to a robbery in some other quarter.

 

The victim without advocate being the general youth and future generations, in 19xx i left highschool and after a couple months had a $8 an hour job in a bakery, back then it was reasonably comfortable money believe it or not, todays kids can probably go into debt living out of a used car and the inflationary effects of the higher gear of borrowing we have been in since last november are not even being felt yet. Of course people are relentless in their ability to not give a sh!t about inflation, where its coming from and what you are borrowing against.

 

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.

[Meshugger]

To clarify, i disagree with that.

 

I do not believe that the individual can bear the sole responsibility of his health, since it depends on factors that are outside of his control. And unlike cars and other consumergoods, you cannot claim warranty on your health, nor can you replace it with a body made out better components.

 

Maybe when we can separate our minds from our bodies and claim new ones as we see fit we can have an implementation of full private healthinsurance.

[Gfted1]

To clarify, i disagree with that.

 

I do not believe that the individual can bear the sole responsibility of his health, since it depends on factors that are outside of his control.

 

Thats a pretty loosey goosey interpretation no? What in our life does not contain factors outside of our control? Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course not. Uncle Obama will make it all better, there, there.

[Meshugger]

To clarify, i disagree with that.

 

I do not believe that the individual can bear the sole responsibility of his health, since it depends on factors that are outside of his control.

 

Thats a pretty loosey goosey interpretation no? What in our life does not contain factors outside of our control? Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?

 

I explained that in greater detail in the sentence that followed, which you didn't include in your quote. Compared to anything else that you buy: games, boats, houses, computers and so on are properties on your behalf, easily replaced. Your health is a completely different matter. Socialized healthcare-insurance (in case you missed my point, hospitals and doctors can have private practices as much as they want) is not THE ultimate solution, but i do not know of a better one.

 

- "Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?"

 

Again, take into context to what i just said.

[Meshugger]

Of course not. Uncle Obama will make it all better, there, there.

 

I take it that you're referring to socialized healthcare insurance being equivalent to surrendering all responsibility of the individual and his freedoms to the government? No sane person has argued anything close to that.

 

And who said that the federal government would have to do it? Is it impossible to incorporate it on a state-level, or even more locally?

[Gfted1]

To clarify, i disagree with that.

 

I do not believe that the individual can bear the sole responsibility of his health, since it depends on factors that are outside of his control.

 

Thats a pretty loosey goosey interpretation no? What in our life does not contain factors outside of our control? Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?

 

I explained that in greater detail in the sentence that followed, which you didn't include in your quote. Compared to anything else that you buy: games, boats, houses, computers and so on are properties on your behalf, easily replaced. Your health is a completely different matter. Socialized healthcare-insurance (in case you missed my point, hospitals and doctors can have private practices as much as they want) is not THE ultimate solution, but i do not know of a better one.

 

- "Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?"

 

Again, take into context to what i just said.

 

TBH, I left that last part out because I didnt even see how it applied to your own arguement. In this case Im less interested in the details and more interested in your general thought process. In general, do you feel that if there are factors outside of your control that you are free of the responsibility of fending for yourself?

[Gorth]

In general, do you feel that if there are factors outside of your control that you are free of the responsibility of fending for yourself?

Out of curiosity, do you think the opposite?

 

I.e. the entire purpose of living in societies is strength in numbers. If we are no longer share any responsibility for our fellow man, why not just dismantle the country, get rid of the military, councils, governments etc. which are all part of a social "pact" where people contributes to for a common good. Heck, the state run military is one of the greatest socialist inventions. They fight for somebody other than themselves

[Monte Carlo]

TBH, I left that last part out because I didnt even see how it applied to your own arguement. In this case Im less interested in the details and more interested in your general thought process. In general, do you feel that if there are factors outside of your control that you are free of the responsibility of fending for yourself?

 

You are walking home, alone, from a friend's house on a quiet suburban street. It's late.

 

Suddenly, a car mounts the pavement and hits you. Both your legs suffer multiple compound fractures, your femur is broken as well as one of your hip-bones. The other internal injuries and crushed ribs are small beer by comparison, ditto the superficial maxillo-facial damage.

 

The driver is uninsured and drunk. There are no witnesses and no obvious CCTV infrastructure to incriminate him so he reverses the car and drives off.

 

The emergency services arrive and an ambulance crew save your life, stabilizing your condition before a doctor in an air ambulance arrives. Your are choppered to the accident and emergency ward of a large city hospital where further surgery takes place. In the totally fictitious country in which this completely notional scenario occurs, there is no socialised healthcare system. However, there is a humane system whereby emergency treatment is free. So you do not have to pay for the life-saving treatment that occurs in the weeks immediately after the accident.

 

You are a poor student from a working-class family. You have no health insurance.

 

So, you are alive. However, you require long-term pallative care to deal with the aftermath of the accident - physio, more operations, facial reconstructive surgery, speech therapy, equipment, drugs and all the other stuff that costs an astonishing amount of money.

 

So, here is my question sport fans, so quit with the ideological navel-gazing and point scoring:

 

What happens? You are manifestly not to blame for your position. How do you take responsiblity for the actions of a drunk driver? Who's going to pay?

 

If you want to go all Ayn Rand on this and say (a) he shouldn't be poor in the first place so tough (b) I'm not remotely interest in someone else's bad lack © etc just come out and say it. It's not a problem, it's a position you can take and defend etc. I find it morally difficult, but then again I live in a society where we've squared that imperfect and difficult circle via socialised healthcare. Again, it's not perfect. It really isn't. But it's civilised.

 

One day we all get sick and need some serious medical top-cover. The sort of top-cover where the private insurer goes "whoah! That's not on the schedule" as if health is like renting a car and cancer treatment is like wanting to rent a big SUV with no collision damage waiver. How do you get around that?

 

Cheers

MC

[Walsingham]

Hang on. I thought the whole point of the New Yorker article was that State health care costs a third less per head than private. _If_ we assume that to be correct then the selfish view accords with the altruist view. Unless you've got some kind of moral objection to subsidising other people's healthcare.

[Gfted1]

Out of curiosity, do you think the opposite?

 

Yes..no..Im confused by the double negative, lol. IMO, even if you get hit by a meteorite, you should shoulder some of the responsibility. Why does your neighbor have to take a hit, a direct and not small reduction in his way of life, because you cannot?

 

What happens? You are manifestly not to blame for your position. How do you take responsiblity for the actions of a drunk driver? Who's going to pay?

 

In that example, in my country, the poor chump pays. Its not perfect but hes alive. Yes he will have a huge debt.

 

If you want to go all Ayn Rand on this and say (a) he shouldn't be poor in the first place so tough (b) I'm not remotely interest in someone else's bad lack

[Meshugger]

To clarify, i disagree with that.

 

I do not believe that the individual can bear the sole responsibility of his health, since it depends on factors that are outside of his control.

 

Thats a pretty loosey goosey interpretation no? What in our life does not contain factors outside of our control? Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?

 

I explained that in greater detail in the sentence that followed, which you didn't include in your quote. Compared to anything else that you buy: games, boats, houses, computers and so on are properties on your behalf, easily replaced. Your health is a completely different matter. Socialized healthcare-insurance (in case you missed my point, hospitals and doctors can have private practices as much as they want) is not THE ultimate solution, but i do not know of a better one.

 

- "Is anybody responsible for anything IYO?"

 

Again, take into context to what i just said.

 

TBH, I left that last part out because I didnt even see how it applied to your own arguement. In this case Im less interested in the details and more interested in your general thought process. In general, do you feel that if there are factors outside of your control that you are free of the responsibility of fending for yourself?

 

It's a little difficult to extrapolate from the point of healthcare insurance to more abstract level, but here goes: You can not demand absolute responsibility, since that would require that the individual would know the risk of every action that he would take; and since there is no man being able to know every risk in the world, there's no absolute responsibility. From there, it goes pretty grey. One should not expect responsibility from others unto oneself according to a list written by someone, somewhere either. However, individuals can cooperate on sharing responsibility through a democratic process and socialize healthcare insurance. MC gave a pretty good example about the meteorite.

 

Not the best idea, but hopefully you get the jist of it.

[Monte Carlo]

Gftd1, I certainly don't think you're some kind of monster. Neither do I find personal responsibility some kind of cross to bear.

 

If we were to discuss other areas of personal responisbility, I'm sure we'd find broad agreement. On welfare, for example, I'm pretty much all about personal responsibility: I resent every tax penny the state gives to the idle and indolent. Ditto education.

 

What I am saying, though, is that if we adapt the old utilitarian, libertarian saw about the role of the state I'm quite up for including healthcare in there. That's all. It makes perfect sense that a healthy country is going to be a more economically viable country. I'd also reiterate that because I'm not from a country with such a robust anti-statist tradition as the USA that I don't quite understand the strident notion that helping out someone with a bit less than you is somehow an aggressive affront to my personal liberty. I accept that for you it is.

 

What would be interesting, and put this matter to bed, is this.

 

Let us compare the post-taxation disposable income of two comparable middle-class professionals in the USA and the UK. Then let's throw some notional healthcare crises at our little control group: maybe an accident, the arrival of a child, a critical illness. Let's look at the bottom line - who's richer?

 

Unless, of course, there is a genuine hostility on ideological principle of paying to support another. Nothing we can do about that!

 

Government: We're gonna tax you for healthcare, but it will be 15% less than your private scheme and of equal quality.

Voter: Will my tax help out someone paying less in?

Government: Yep.

Voter: Hell, I'd rather pay 15% more. Commie.

 

Nothing you can do about that. Nothing.

 

Cheers

MC

[Wrath of Dagon]

The real issue I see is this. If the government provides food, shelter, and healthcare, what's the point of someone working? What effect does dependency have on society? Also I have a very hard time believing that goverment run healthcare provides the same quality at lower cost as private healthcare. Aren't all the countries with public healthcare constantly struggling with cost, and some are now encouraging people to get private one? We have public healthcare in my county btw, but no one who has a decent income would be caught dead in it.