Dear Government,

[Hurlshort]

 

Ignoring, of course, the scientific and medical consensus that smoking is terrible for your health and incurs huge cost burdens on the public who have to pay for smokers' healthcare.

Right there is what is so insidious about government run healthcare. It makes a public interest in your private activites. I can see why the US Government wants it so bad. It is the ulitmate backstage pass into everything. Ban smoking, can't have that it makes you sick and we have to pay for it. Ban guns, you poor dears might get injured and we have to pay for it, ban red meat we might have to pay for your heart surgery one day. Not a soul in the government, ANY government gives a damn if you live another day. All they want is control over you if you do.

 

You want people to live healthy? Make them pay for their own god damned healthcare. THAT will get their attention. No one should be asked to pay for poor decisions that someone else made.

 

Except that is basically the system we had, and instead of unhealthy people footing a large bill, they just go bankrupt/default/die.  So then the hospital raises the costs to cover insurance/deadbeats and those who do pay for their healthcare get a bigger bill.  It's a terrible system.  I don't want government involved in health care, but I also don't want a $70,000 bill when I have a kid.  That is literally how much the bills came out to for my son, who spent a week in NICU.

[Guard Dog]

Ok then we can agree the main problem with health care in the US is runaway prices. So here is the governments plan. Think of health insurance/care as a single commodity for the moment. Now suppose we were to

 

1) Artificially limit access to that commodity by preventing the providers of the commodity to sell only to select markets

2) Drive up the costs of providing the commodity with increased regulation, taxes on equipment, insurance requirements, etc

3) Force the providers of that commodity to maximize their costs to protect themselves for legal threats from a trial lawyer lobby that supported your election

4) Force everyone, on pain of legal sanction, to purchase that commodity.

 

So lets see, artificially limit the quantity, artificially drive up the costs, force eveyone to buy it. Gee, what do you think that does to the price?

[Walsingham]

Except that is basically the system we had, and instead of unhealthy people footing a large bill, they just go bankrupt/default/die.  So then the hospital raises the costs to cover insurance/deadbeats and those who do pay for their healthcare get a bigger bill.  It's a terrible system.  I don't want government involved in health care, but I also don't want a $70,000 bill when I have a kid.  That is literally how much the bills came out to for my son, who spent a week in NICU.

 

What the FETH?

 

Seriously?

 

As bongoed as we've let the NHS get at least I don't have to worry about choosing between my home and dying.

 

~

 

GD, I take your point about an 'access all areas' pass. But this would be resolved if we'd just follow a few good engineering principles and agree what we expect up front and in the open.

 

It has to be results oriented, not process or sodding behaviour focussed. I get to live till I'm eighty, or until I break in ten places at once. Something like that. No pain more than 60% of the time.

 

If you feel I can't do certain things then I'm happy to sign a waiver to provision if I get to do them. Not perfect, but good enough.

[Guard Dog]

I truely do not think the government gives a damn about my healthcare or quality of life. All they want is to have that over me. To have one more lever to force people to conform to their plan and have you so dependant on them you are compelled to vote for them. I cannot think of one single thing in the government with the possible exception of the military that is result oriented. Unless the result is eternal self-pereptuation.

 

Right now our health care system is in utter ruins because of government interference. The worst part is the only way that is being suggested to fix it is to have the very people who ruined it take it over completely. And God help us all when they do.

[Hurlshort]

My healthcare insurance is a private company, but I don't think they give a damn about my healthcare or quality of life either.

[Guard Dog]

Of course they don't. They give a damn if your premiums are paid. You know exactly what they want and where you stand with them. You also know what to expect from them and if they violate your policy contract there are legal remedies.

 

In a single payer government run system if they (the other people who don't give a damn about you) decide you don't get to have or need something you have no recourse. And what do THEY want? It isn't money, they've already got your money by this point.

 

You know what would fix this whole insurance mess? Market forces. Right now your insurance company is not afraid of losing you because there is almost nowhere for you to go. There are laws in this country prohibiting the sale of health insurance across state lines. It is madness. Take those away and allow free and fair nation wide competition for health insurance customers and prices will drop and quality of policies will rise because if your insurance sucks, you can go buy from someone else.

 

This is another example of how government has made a mess out of this. We have a great medical system now. It's called veterinary care. I could have an MRI done on my dog within the next hour if he needed it. But I could not have one done on myself if I needed it. There are over 50 vets within a 30 minute drive from me offering a range of services of different quality for a range of different prices. I can go see any one of them I choose and since they are all competing with each other the prices are controlled. Why is this? The god damned government has not involed itself in veterinary medicine and screwed it up. There are seven companies that I know of that sell pet health insurance. I can buy a range of different policies from any one of them no matter where they are in the country. Why the hell can't we do human health care the same way?

 

We used to. The reason we don't and never will again is because it's not about health care. It's about control.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

It's about money GD, not control. You can take your dogs to a vet for the fact they look like they're in bad shape, but if it turns out to be to bad a shape, you can just ask for him to be put down. Not many people (myself excluded) would go to a doctor, get an MRI that shows that they've got a giant lump the size of a baseball in their kidneys, and say "It's to much money and suffering, kill me".

 

Vets rely on your goodwill to keep you coming back through the lives of your pets. Doctors don't, Doctors rely on your trusting them to make you better, while at the same time trying to keep you alive to pay your bills.  And while they aren't some dastardly fiend that'll keep you alive JUUUUST enough to keep paying the bills while being sick, their accountants wish they were.

 

Odd piece of info I heard last week on a Daily Show interview with Steven Brill, the surgical gowns Doctors use at the hospital are charged to the uninsured at 22 bucks a gown. Insurance companies get it for 10 (wow, great cost cutting!).

 

Ebay, and medical surplus sites have it for a whopping FOUR DOLLARS plus shipping and handling. >80% discount if you just buy all the equipment they're using to cut you open. THAT is where our system is breaking down... well that and the fact that an individual person cannot easily go and get cheap health care that covers as well as an employers, so "competition" is really just "Who can attract business clients" rather than "who can attract clients".

[Walsingham]

So, hang on, let me see if I understand this?

 

Private industry owns both  the insurance against the event, and the provision for the event? So their ideal point (in graph terms) is where premium intake and cost of provision are at maximum? GD, you will concede that in the limited sense of this dynamic private health insurance and private healthcare provision are a poor combination?

 

However, I am oliged to concede that given a proliferation of providers it would be harder for a small number of commercial agencies to monopolise both in a given area, bringing costs down.

[Orogun01]

But with the lack of a strong middle class and the magnitude of today's corporations it is unlikely that there's going to be that much competition. Plus due to the sheer size of of their enterprise big companies can buy out smaller ones or endure them.
It would take a great number of small companies which are sustainable in order to bring down the profits of a mega corporation, with that many competitors in a zero sum game their slices of the pie get smaller and smaller. So i'm afraid that any industry that's being controlled by a conglomerate is going to continue to be controlled by a conglomerate.

[Walsingham]

But with the lack of a strong middle class and the magnitude of today's corporations it is unlikely that there's going to be that much competition. Plus due to the sheer size of of their enterprise big companies can buy out smaller ones or endure them.

It would take a great number of small companies which are sustainable in order to bring down the profits of a mega corporation, with that many competitors in a zero sum game their slices of the pie get smaller and smaller. So i'm afraid that any industry that's being controlled by a conglomerate is going to continue to be controlled by a conglomerate.

 

I'm convinced by your analysis.

[Orogun01]

[Guard Dog]

But with the lack of a strong middle class and the magnitude of today's corporations it is unlikely that there's going to be that much competition. Plus due to the sheer size of of their enterprise big companies can buy out smaller ones or endure them.

It would take a great number of small companies which are sustainable in order to bring down the profits of a mega corporation, with that many competitors in a zero sum game their slices of the pie get smaller and smaller. So i'm afraid that any industry that's being controlled by a conglomerate is going to continue to be controlled by a conglomerate.

Orogun you are coming from a flawed premise here. We have anti-trust laws here (Sherman Act, Clayton Anti-Trust  Act, Robinson-Patman just to name a few and hundeds of state laws), that you are not taking into account that would prevent exactly what you theorize would happen. I'd even take it one step further than suggest legislative action that borrows a page from the Glass-Stengal act that would prevent insurance companies from owning hospitals and Medical facilities and vice versa. That would fix your concern too Wals.

[Orogun01]

Orogun you are coming from a flawed premise here. We have anti-trust laws here (Sherman Act, Clayton Anti-Trust  Act, Robinson-Patman just to name a few and hundeds of state laws), that you are not taking into account that would prevent exactly what you theorize would happen. I'd even take it one step further than suggest legislative action that borrows a page from the Glass-Stengal act that would prevent insurance companies from owning hospitals and Medical facilities and vice versa. That would fix your concern too Wals.

I was referring to big companies rather than just a single one, meaning that the market is their playground and now with globalization and chain stores is hard for small business to compete against the big guys. 

Also IIRC some of those laws were re-appealed during the Bush administration which was considered to be one of the factors in the economic collapse.

Nevertheless I would also question how much can these laws be enforced since companies have zero transparency, so they could hide very well their monopoly and we'd be none the wiser.

Of course that's all speculative but my initial point stands big companies have made a fissure in microeconomies which has in turn lead to the decline of the middle class which was sustained by small businesses.

[Rostere]

I also don't want a $70,000 bill when I have a kid.  That is literally how much the bills came out to for my son, who spent a week in NICU.

 

That's completely insane.

 

Why doesn't the US just copy/paste the system of some country with lower medical costs?

[Oerwinde]

 

I also don't want a $70,000 bill when I have a kid.  That is literally how much the bills came out to for my son, who spent a week in NICU.

 

That's completely insane.

 

Why doesn't the US just copy/paste the system of some country with lower medical costs?

 

Because they all have socialised medicine and socialism is evil.

[Guard Dog]

 

Orogun you are coming from a flawed premise here. We have anti-trust laws here (Sherman Act, Clayton Anti-Trust  Act, Robinson-Patman just to name a few and hundeds of state laws), that you are not taking into account that would prevent exactly what you theorize would happen. I'd even take it one step further than suggest legislative action that borrows a page from the Glass-Stengal act that would prevent insurance companies from owning hospitals and Medical facilities and vice versa. That would fix your concern too Wals.

I was referring to big companies rather than just a single one, meaning that the market is their playground and now with globalization and chain stores is hard for small business to compete against the big guys. 

Also IIRC some of those laws were re-appealed during the Bush administration which was considered to be one of the factors in the economic collapse.

Nevertheless I would also question how much can these laws be enforced since companies have zero transparency, so they could hide very well their monopoly and we'd be none the wiser.

Of course that's all speculative but my initial point stands big companies have made a fissure in microeconomies which has in turn lead to the decline of the middle class which was sustained by small businesses.

 

Glass-Stengal was effectivley repealed during the Clinton Admin and that fact had a LOT to do with the crash in 2008 and the collpase of the real estate market. But it had nothing to do with anti-trust. They (the anti-trust laws) are all still in effect and there is a list of SCOTUS decisions that uphold them. Just ask AT&T & Microsoft. My idea WOULD work and it would be fairer and most importantly freerer than the alternative. I DO NOT want the god damned government deciding if I get healthcare and when. It won't be long before they start looking into how you vote before they dcide if they want to treat you or not. You had better believe that is coming.

[Walsingham]

 

But with the lack of a strong middle class and the magnitude of today's corporations it is unlikely that there's going to be that much competition. Plus due to the sheer size of of their enterprise big companies can buy out smaller ones or endure them.

It would take a great number of small companies which are sustainable in order to bring down the profits of a mega corporation, with that many competitors in a zero sum game their slices of the pie get smaller and smaller. So i'm afraid that any industry that's being controlled by a conglomerate is going to continue to be controlled by a conglomerate.

Orogun you are coming from a flawed premise here. We have anti-trust laws here (Sherman Act, Clayton Anti-Trust  Act, Robinson-Patman just to name a few and hundeds of state laws), that you are not taking into account that would prevent exactly what you theorize would happen. I'd even take it one step further than suggest legislative action that borrows a page from the Glass-Stengal act that would prevent insurance companies from owning hospitals and Medical facilities and vice versa. That would fix your concern too Wals.

 

Fair play. So why haven't we seen anything like it so far?

 

Also I should gently remind you that I've been reliant on government healthcare my entire life, and with the notable exception of my spine - noone seems to know what to do about the human spine being badly designed* - it's been stupendous. I have to know how to push the occasional bureaucratic lever. But it's no harder than getting a replacement recycling bin.

 

 

 

*Could we redesign it?

[Guard Dog]

The truth is Wals, you are out of luck. National Healthcare is a fact in GB and it is never going away. You will never get the genie back in the bottle. That is why it is so insidious. That's why I'm opposing even to the point of breaking up the country over it. Once you have it, you can never get rid of it. That transition is forever.

 

As for why ideas like I've advocated are not getting any traction in the US it's because the government does not want that to happen. They (the left wing at least) WANT nationalized healthcare. Like I said it is the ultimate backstage pass. They want that control over us. As you so astutely stated in the other thread it's the "many swivel-eyed bastards who indulge waking dreams of ordering people about simply for the puritanical thrill of it." that made Obama's election happen and work in his administration, including him. They are opposed to anything that gives the average citizen whom they view with a mixture of condescension and hostility, with greater freedom and autonomy.

 

And far too many Americans, 62,154,025 to be exact said on November 7 "Take our freedom from us, just take care of us". 

[Hurlshort]

Obama was the only one promising to help give gay couples the freedom to marry, so not all 62 million + were agreeing to give up freedom.  In fact nothing Romney said made me feel like I was going to gain freedom.  

[Guard Dog]

And I agreed with him on that. And I also agreed Romney would not have gained us anything. The very best I was hoping for from Romney was a four year delay in the expansion of Federal power. Or at least a four year reduction in the rate of federal power expansion. Heck he was already practically a Democrat in his political beliefs.

 

Voting for him was me choosing the lesser of two evils. Voting for the guy who would hurt me the least. And the 62M who voted for him may not want to give up freedom but they sure voted for it. The man is not even two months into his second term and he is attacking the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th Amendments with reckless abandon. Even promising to use executive action if Congress does not roll over and give him his way.

[Orogun01]

NVM

Edited March 8, 2013 by Orogun01

[Calax]

It boggles my mind that California's total population makes up about 1/4th of the voting population.

 

That said, the American health insurance system is broken. If they forced a law that made it so that I could get the same level of insurance for the same prices as my employers get, you'd probably see overall costs plummet. I mean, I realize that some things are expensive, but it's taken to ridiculous levels on your bills (again, the 20 dollar surgical gowns).

[Nepenthe]

 

 

But with the lack of a strong middle class and the magnitude of today's corporations it is unlikely that there's going to be that much competition. Plus due to the sheer size of of their enterprise big companies can buy out smaller ones or endure them.

It would take a great number of small companies which are sustainable in order to bring down the profits of a mega corporation, with that many competitors in a zero sum game their slices of the pie get smaller and smaller. So i'm afraid that any industry that's being controlled by a conglomerate is going to continue to be controlled by a conglomerate.

Orogun you are coming from a flawed premise here. We have anti-trust laws here (Sherman Act, Clayton Anti-Trust Act, Robinson-Patman just to name a few and hundeds of state laws), that you are not taking into account that would prevent exactly what you theorize would happen. I'd even take it one step further than suggest legislative action that borrows a page from the Glass-Stengal act that would prevent insurance companies from owning hospitals and Medical facilities and vice versa. That would fix your concern too Wals.

I have serious suspicions that anti-trust laws are either laxly applied or a complete sham. I can think of too many examples of what Orogun says and not one of good ols Standard Oil style cutting up...

[Calax]

 

 

 

But with the lack of a strong middle class and the magnitude of today's corporations it is unlikely that there's going to be that much competition. Plus due to the sheer size of of their enterprise big companies can buy out smaller ones or endure them.

It would take a great number of small companies which are sustainable in order to bring down the profits of a mega corporation, with that many competitors in a zero sum game their slices of the pie get smaller and smaller. So i'm afraid that any industry that's being controlled by a conglomerate is going to continue to be controlled by a conglomerate.

Orogun you are coming from a flawed premise here. We have anti-trust laws here (Sherman Act, Clayton Anti-Trust Act, Robinson-Patman just to name a few and hundeds of state laws), that you are not taking into account that would prevent exactly what you theorize would happen. I'd even take it one step further than suggest legislative action that borrows a page from the Glass-Stengal act that would prevent insurance companies from owning hospitals and Medical facilities and vice versa. That would fix your concern too Wals.

I have serious suspicions that anti-trust laws are either laxly applied or a complete sham. I can think of too many examples of what Orogun says and not one of good ols Standard Oil style cutting up...

AT&T and Microsoft are the two recent examples of Anti-Trust being put into effect. However the issue is that companies are going more and more multi-national so you'd end up in a Debeers situation, the monopoly is outside the company, and they use that to manipulate their profits in the US by being able to make and break jewelers.

[Nepenthe]

Last time I looked Microsoft was still running both office and windows from the same company.