Dear Government,

[Guard Dog]

They are used all the time. The AT&T/T-Mobile merger was blocked by them just two years ago. A cable merger, I think Cox & Time/Warner (I think) was also blocked recently. Breaking up big companies/monopolies is unusual, preventing them is commonplace and seldom makes a big news splash.

[Orogun01]

Can you perhaps explain why there's a surge in recent mergers? e.g: MetroPCS and T-Mobile.
Or the recent philosophy of Too Big to Fail?

[Nepenthe]

They are used all the time. The AT&T/T-Mobile merger was blocked by them just two years ago. A cable merger, I think Cox & Time/Warner (I think) was also blocked recently. Breaking up big companies/monopolies is unusual, preventing them is commonplace and seldom makes a big news splash.

To be frank instead of my usual tongue in cheek, I just think that those provisions could be used a lot more. I mean, I'm not really an expert on on the U.S. mobile service provider scene, but to my understanding both AT&T and T-Mobile have fairly dominant positions by themselves. Obviously, I could think a lot more examples from finland, but who gives a **** here, really...

[Wrath of Dagon]

The problem with healthcare is there is no free market because someone else pays, so the consumer doesn't care about cost. Half the problem could be solved if people were made to pay for their own routine care, but the consumer is now too used to someone else paying, so politically it would never fly. And it still leaves the issue of catastrophic care, because almost no one is able to pay for that on their own. Btw, I never understood this business about not being able to buy across state lines. When I bought my own insurance I got it from some company in Wisconsin, so you can definitely do that. Are they talking about the state not being able to regulate the insurance policies then? Doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

 

Edit: Also we already have a single payer system, it's called Medicare, and it's going broke. So may be the government should fix that problem first before expanding their reach.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Orogun01]

The problem with healthcare is there is no free market because someone else pays, so the consumer doesn't care about cost. Half the problem could be solved if people were made to pay for their own routine care, but the consumer is now too used to someone else paying, so politically it would never fly. And it still leaves the issue of catastrophic care, because almost no one is able to pay for that on their own. Btw, I never understood this business about not being able to buy across state lines. When I bought my own insurance I got it from some company in Wisconsin, so you can definitely do that. Are they talking about the state not being able to regulate the insurance policies then? Doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

 

Edit: Also we already have a single payer system, it's called Medicare, and it's going broke. So may be the government should fix that problem first before expanding their reach.

You're wrong, the free market is a detriment to healthcare as they often abuse the necessity of their products to hike up the price. Products which you can get from third world countries at relative null values. They also keep most people away from the doctor for checkups since they are an unnecessary cost and can ultimately lead to people putting off their doctors for too long until it's too late.

The problem is that most people can't afford a good insurance and insurances are notorious for skimping out on cost as are hospitals for charging for the most measly things at an overprice.

So do consider consumer habits and their causes before you place the blame solely on the consumers, if medicine wasn't a necessary good hospitals would had changed their practices already. But they seem to have a moral vacuum when it comes to realizing that they are not providing a service, they are preying on people's misery.

[BruceVC]

Guys I don't profess to be an expert on the USA  Healthcare system but I do travel to the USA once or twice a year and try to follow as much political news as I can. This is not about someone paying for someones else's medical aid, this is honestly a question of humanity. How can the most progressive and advanced Western country in the world  not have a medical aid system for all its citizens? How can any one person in the USA die because they don't get admitted to a hospital because the hospital refuses them entry

 

The USA spends billions on warfare,  some people are addicted to false celebrity culture, eating yourself to death is acceptable and protected by law and people are more interested in the lives and welfare of some fictional soapie star character than the real indigent that exist in society. I am not trying to  attack the USA but something is fundamentally wrong with all this resistance to what Obama is trying to implement. An equitable public Healthcare system for all its citizens?

[Calax]

Also, you can get individual health care for you and your family not through work. It's just prohibitively expensive, so people get ti through their companies and are not even the primary client of their insurance.

[alanschu]

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.

 

On some level health is always going to be public components, unless you enable hospitals and other acute emergency care centers the ability to deny emergency treatment until proof of insurance/capability to pay is confirmed (this is not a good thing).

 

This situation is compounded because these types of health care costs are the most prohibitively expensive to boot.

Edited March 15, 2013 by alanschu

[Monte Carlo]

Some European countries square this circle slightly better than the UK (old-skool command economics, nationalised, you pay for it whether you use it or not via direct taxation) and the US (expensive private provision with not-very-satisfactory safety net system for the poor).

 

In France and Spain you pay some costs. There is an element of insurance. There is also significant government investment. It's a hybrid. For example, in France you pay a small fee to see a general practitioner. In the UK you don't. So every hypochondriac can rock up to the doctor and waste his or her time for free in the UK. In France you take responsibility by paying. Furthermore, the proscription charges are very low when you go to get your meds. In the UK, proscription charges are high so you can subsidize every lazy bastard's treatment / methadone / ADHD 'issues' and so on.

 

So although I'm not a bleeding heart statist, I'm also not a heartless Ayn Rand fanboy. I think that a healthy society is  a more economically and socially effective one than one that leaves end-game cancer sufferers living under a bridge in a cardboard box. OTOH I think the feckless and idle need to get a bloody grip.

 

That means compromises in both directions.

 

Edit: And I find those pictures on cigarette packets achingly hip. I can't wait to see puffy, raddled livers plastered on beer labels.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Monte Carlo

[BruceVC]

Some European countries square this circle slightly better than the UK (old-skool command economics, nationalised, you pay for it whether you use it or not via direct taxation) and the US (expensive private provision with not-very-satisfactory safety net system for the poor).

 

In France and Spain you pay some costs. There is an element of insurance. There is also significant government investment. It's a hybrid. For example, in France you pay a small fee to see a general practitioner. In the UK you don't. So every hypochondriac can rock up to the doctor and waste his or her time for free in the UK. In France you take responsibility by paying. Furthermore, the proscription charges are very low when you go to get your meds. In the UK, proscription charges are high so you can subsidize every lazy bastard's treatment / methadone / ADHD 'issues' and so on.

 

So although I'm not a bleeding heart statist, I'm also not a heartless Ayn Rand fanboy. I think that a healthy society is  a more economically and socially effective one than one that leaves end-game cancer sufferers living under a bridge in a cardboard box. OTOH I think the feckless and idle need to get a bloody grip.

 

That means compromises in both directions.

 

Edit: And I find those pictures on cigarette packets achingly hip. I can't wait to see puffy, raddled livers plastered on beer labels.

Hi Monte

Don't forget to mention we want Chainmail bikini's in PE in the next Romance\Sex thread

[Gfted1]

How can any one person in the USA die because they don't get admitted to a hospital because the hospital refuses them entry...

*sigh*

 

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

[alanschu]

Exactly.  It's impossible for health care to be completely private for that reason alone.

 

Unfortunately, that type of care is also ridiculously expensive.

[alanschu]

 

How can any one person in the USA die because they don't get admitted to a hospital because the hospital refuses them entry...

*sigh*

 

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

 

Although reading up on that, the Act doesn't cover emergencies that arise to someone that is already admitted to a hospital.

[Gfted1]

You mean a different emergency that befell the patient after being admitted for the current emergency? Can you snip out the part you are referring to?

[alanschu]

A significant portion of emergency room visits are considered not

emergencies as defined by EMTALA, and are therefore not covered[2]. The medical profession refers to these cases as "non-emergent".

• A normal pregnancy delivery. In a case reviewed by courts, EMTALA did not cover the hospital stay[3].
• Opioid withdrawal [4]
• fever, elevated white blood cell count and a possible abscess [5]

If a patient is already in the hospital for another reason, and develops an emergency condition, EMTALA similarly does not apply[6].

 

Note that one does not need to be in an emergency condition to be admitted to a hospital.

Edited March 15, 2013 by alanschu

[Gfted1]

 

A significant portion of emergency room visits are considered not

emergencies as defined by EMTALA, and are therefore not covered[2]. The medical profession refers to these cases as "non-emergent".

• A normal pregnancy delivery. In a case reviewed by courts, EMTALA did not cover the hospital stay[3].
• Opioid withdrawal [4]
• fever, elevated white blood cell count and a possible abscess [5]

If a patient is already in the hospital for another reason, and develops an emergency condition, EMTALA similarly does not apply[6].

 

 

Note that one does not need to be in an emergency condition to be admitted to a hospital.

Hmm, a strange stipulation and scanning the website that reference 6 points to I didnt see anything related to that. Anyway, I guess in that case you can walk out and walk back in with a new emergency?

[alanschu]

It's probably this:

 

 

The court ruled the EMTALA did not apply to the baby because the baby’s emergency arose in the hospital after the mother’s non-emergency admission. Thus there was no legal requirement for the hospital to jump through the EMTALA’s hoops in order to transfer this  baby to neonatal intensive care at another facility.

 

Stupid format copying...

[Gfted1]

My bad, I scrolled down to the notes and references section and clicked link 6 instead of clicking the number 6 next to that statement.

[Walsingham]

 

Some European countries square this circle slightly better than the UK (old-skool command economics, nationalised, you pay for it whether you use it or not via direct taxation) and the US (expensive private provision with not-very-satisfactory safety net system for the poor).

 

In France and Spain you pay some costs. There is an element of insurance. There is also significant government investment. It's a hybrid. For example, in France you pay a small fee to see a general practitioner. In the UK you don't. So every hypochondriac can rock up to the doctor and waste his or her time for free in the UK. In France you take responsibility by paying. Furthermore, the proscription charges are very low when you go to get your meds. In the UK, proscription charges are high so you can subsidize every lazy bastard's treatment / methadone / ADHD 'issues' and so on.

 

So although I'm not a bleeding heart statist, I'm also not a heartless Ayn Rand fanboy. I think that a healthy society is  a more economically and socially effective one than one that leaves end-game cancer sufferers living under a bridge in a cardboard box. OTOH I think the feckless and idle need to get a bloody grip.

 

That means compromises in both directions.

 

Edit: And I find those pictures on cigarette packets achingly hip. I can't wait to see puffy, raddled livers plastered on beer labels.

Hi Monte

Don't forget to mention we want Chainmail bikini's in PE in the next Romance\Sex thread

 

Actually, this is an area in which Europe totally needs to catch up. Bikinis in beer advertising. In fact, bikini ladies in general.