Jump to content

Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all'


DKW 86

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, maxwere said:

Is this not true for all private business?  The one who caters to all succeeds at none.  Specialization increases efficiency.

 

Of course it's true for private business. That's exactly my point.

But the objective is to provide healthcare insurance for everyone, not to increase the profitability of a given private business.

There is no incentive for private business to address that objective if it reduces their profitability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Some of you act as if the Free Market was created Yesterday. As far as I know, we have had "free markets for likely a hundred years. If they were going to develop and compete to insure the elderly and to insure the poor where was that happening? I dont see it. There holes in the "Market Model" that never been, nor will ever be, covered by a free market answer. You say I dont understand Markets and the free market concept. I know I do. I have been in business for myself. One of my degrees is in Economics. I have also gotten older and more mellow in my old age. I now freely admit that some of the religious style dogma I learned in my earlier years just doesnt have real-world translations. 

We cannot stand back and talk about what is just plainly not happening in the world around us. Theories do not equal real-world realities. 

I am a veteran. I know full well the garbage the VA is corrupted with. But corruption is whole other issue. Do we have corruption in the Miltary Budgeting Process? Oh hell yes! Do we stop buying military hardware? NO! Same applies to healthcare. Will we have corruption and issues in a single payer system? Yes!  We still need to buy it tho.

The only space of modern "health" the free market has been allowed to function without significant regulatory oversight is the elective market of cosmetic surgery and lasik.  I don't need to tell you what costs have done over time.  The free market has been regulated out of preventative and non-elective dating back to the great depression.

Yes, we need to buy a lot less military hardware, but that's beside the point.

The fact that we have poor elderly, sick, wounded vets, etc... in no way invalidates market theory.  It takes only a stroke of a pen to enact many government UFLs, but much pain and lots of time to fund them (what will need to be done to rollback something like medicare).  This is a very complex transition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxwere said:

Is this not true for all private business?  The one who caters to all succeeds at none.  Specialization increases efficiency.

Homer, I think you are basing this on your experience with a third party system that originated with the 1942 stabilization act to prevent wage increases (another notorious attempt to control prices).  Employers we're allowed to use a tax subsidized benefits to attract labor.  That's the crux of the system we have today.  Eliminate group benefits in favor of individual major medical programs (no caps).  Pay for routine work out of pocket or via discount memberships and we're all richer.  Cut all of the liability, cost redistribution, entitlement crap and a bandaid cost $.10 again.  $10 for a shot.  $50 imaging procedures.  Preventative care could conceivably roll into something like a gym membership.  Allow secure record keeping innovations with block chain.  Transparent competitive pricing...  so on and so on.  Total outlays would be 80% less***.  Health insurance would be just that, insurance and very profitable (for all parties).  Insurers could highly specialize in major med, stop loss or routine discounts.  Have some imagination America!

*** administration, tort, type 2 diabetes and heart disease (preventable conditions, mostly the result of lifestyle) make up ~75% of health care costs (yes there is some overlap).

I feel for all of you with respect to the ridiculous system and these prices.

There is no way that elimination of group benefits would make healthcare more available and less expensive for everyone.  It would simply exacerbate the problem of cherry picking of customers by insurance companies that more people would be without affordable coverage. The principle of insurance is to spread risk among the people who need that insurance.

Since everyone will need healthcare services at some point, the principle of healthcare insurance should include providing it to everyone.  I cannot think of a way of doing that without government involvement.

I do agree with more out of pocket expenses for those who can pay, but the artificial high costs for routine services is driven more from shifting costs from people with no insurance to those who can pay by the providers.  A universal, nationalized system would only increase the amount being contributed by people who are otherwise not contributing anything today.

If you propose to refuse healthcare services to those who cannot afford insurance,  just say so.  Don't try to wrap it up in economic theories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course it's true for private business. That's exactly my point.

But the objective is to provide healthcare insurance for everyone, not to increase the profitability of a given private business.

There is no incentive for private business to address that objective if it reduces their profitability.

 

Would you agree, (1) there is a price at which private companies will offer a service to pre-existing or elderly?  Secondarily, a specialization in higher demand health clients would create overall cost savings?

Assuming you would #1, then we are essentially arguing the price is far too high for those cases to afford.  Then, we are essentially talking about welfare, not healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AU64 said:

supposed to do those things.....but of course determining what are "collective values".....that's usually done by vocal and well financed special interest groups who take it on themselves to decide what is good for everyone. 

And where, or when or how did health care become a "right" ? just curious?  

" Rights that people supposedly have under natural law. The Declaration of Independence of the United States lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as natural rights."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you propose to refuse healthcare services to those who cannot afford insurance,  just say so.  Don't try to wrap it up in economic theories. 

Poor people, on average, have lower morbidity and longevity that wealthy.  Everyone agree?  Feel better?  Can government change this?  yes, see Cambodia.  Can government improve overall health?  No.  That can only be a issue of personal responsibility and self governance.

Also, its funny how my real world historic examples are labeled "economic theories".  Group (third party) insurance moves the consumer further away from the provider and real costs.  There is no rationing or cost comparisons, just unchecked consumption.  This is not a theory.  100% observable.  I observe it in my own behavioral choices when it comes to healthcare (like when my annual copay has been met).

Don't give up on markets guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, maxwere said:

1) Would you agree, (1) there is a price at which private companies will offer a service to pre-existing or elderly? 

2) Secondarily, a specialization in higher demand health clients would create overall cost savings?

3) Assuming you would #1, then we are essentially arguing the price is far too high for those cases to afford.  Then, we are essentially talking about welfare, not healthcare.

1) No, not practically, for the reason you mention - the price would be far too high to be affordable.

2) Perhaps for healthcare providers, not for insurers.

3) First healthcare is not healthcare insurance.  Secondly I have no problem with applying the concepts of welfare in providing healthcare to those who cannot afford insurance any more than I do providing food to those who cannot afford food.  In either case, a more effective effort to address such extreme cases is possible than with the participation of for-profit companies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

" Rights that people supposedly have under natural law. The Declaration of Independence of the United States lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as natural rights."

I was just thinking of that... you mean life, liberty and property? (negative rights)  ...and I assume you translate "life" to be collective social healthcare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

3) First healthcare is not healthcare insurance.  Secondly I have no problem with applying the concepts of welfare in providing healthcare to those who cannot afford insurance any more than I do providing food to those who cannot afford food.  In either case, a more effective effort to address such extreme cases is possible than with the participation of for-profit companies.

I'm on board with this as an intermediate stage.  And echo your first statement.  I'd really like to see a distinction, call a spade a spade.

Incidentally, low deductible auto insurance (think body shops) have plenty of sketchiness.  Mainly b/c they are able to scam the insurers a bit (most of their clients).  Hard to scam a guy paying out of pocket.  That's why low deductible plans are so $$.  If you're like me you probably keep a $500 or higher deductible to save money figuring you just pony the dough if you had to.  Same principles apply to major med/preventative services.  Private doesn't eliminate crony.  It just drastically reduces its impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2018 at 2:53 PM, maxwere said:

Poor people, on average, have lower morbidity and longevity that wealthy.  Everyone agree?  Feel better?  Can government change this?  yes, see Cambodia.  Can government improve overall health?  No.  That can only be a issue of personal responsibility and self governance.

Also, its funny how my real world historic examples are labeled "economic theories".  Group (third party) insurance moves the consumer further away from the provider and real costs.  There is no rationing or cost comparisons, just unchecked consumption.  This is not a theory.  100% observable.  I observe it in my own behavioral choices when it comes to healthcare (like when my annual copay has been met).

Don't give up on markets guys!

Free market theory is economic theory.   (You are making the common mistake of equating the term "theory" with unproven.)  

But the fact it works well - given certain key factors as social investments - to generally increase wealth doesn't mean it's the best way to approach every problem.  There are problems that affect the general good that are not served well by free markets.  Pollution mitigation is a good example.  Self defense is another.  

Regarding healthcare, how about explaining how so many other advanced countries provide a higher level of healthcare for their citizens using a mix of methods you might consider "socialist"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, maxwere said:

I was just thinking of that... you mean life, liberty and property? (negative rights)  ...and I assume you translate "life" to be collective social healthcare?

I was asked why I thought medical services should be considered a right.  I consider it providing such care a moral obligation as a human, but the person asking seemed to be referring more to a legal reason.

Last time I checked, even a poor person receives attention if they fall over on the street or are hit by a car in this country. Why is that the case if we don't consider healthcare to be a basic right? 

Would you prefer it otherwise? 

Should we as a country determine no one has a "right" to medical attention or no "right" to eat?   Should we let people - of any age - bleed or starve to death because the free market system won't provide them such needs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, maxwere said:

I'm on board with this as an intermediate stage.  And echo your first statement.  I'd really like to see a distinction, call a spade a spade.

Incidentally, low deductible auto insurance (think body shops) have plenty of sketchiness.  Mainly b/c they are able to scam the insurers a bit (most of their clients).  Hard to scam a guy paying out of pocket.  That's why low deductible plans are so $$.  If you're like me you probably keep a $500 or higher deductible to save money figuring you just pony the dough if you had to.  Same principles apply to major med/preventative services.  Private doesn't eliminate crony.  It just drastically reduces its impact.

Of course I pay as high of a deductible as I can.  I also pay for maximum liability coverage as well as "underinsured" coverage. 

Minimum required insurance is a joke.

And I agree that cost of healthcare services is a major issue that is not being addressed effectively by our current system, in theory or in practice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I was asked why I thought medical services should be considered a right.  I consider it providing such care a moral obligation as a human, but the person asking seemed to be referring more to a legal reason.

Last time I checked, even a poor person receives attention if they fall over on the street or are hit by a car in this country. Why is that the case if we don't consider healthcare to be a basic right?

Would you prefer it otherwise? 

Should we as a country determine no one has a "right" to medical attention or no "right" to eat?   Should we let people - of any age - bleed or starve to death because the free market system won't provide them such needs?

If by "we" you mean The State, then no we don't have an obligation to do anything positive for anyone.  Likewise, you have no right to eat the food or water of others.  You DO have the right to NOT have your food or water eaten by others.  Charity is a function of individual choice and personal conscience.

Since you asked... Circumstantially, I have the obligation to help my brother/neighbor or even enemy.  That is my personal obligation as a confessing Christian via my priestly office imputed through Christs sacrifice (Mt 20, Heb 7, 1 Pt 2:9) (summarily known as the priesthood of all believers).  It is not an obligation of the state or even non-believers (though it might be expected of an Aw-bun man).  Yes, individuals in this country are still compassionate in ways other countries are not.  That has a lot to do with 500 years of moral capital built by the spread of Christianity, the church and particularly protestant reformation in the west.  It is the backbone of the DoI and how the framers would have us interpret.  I say this partially as an attempt to fully answer your question @homersapien openly, but primarily for the benefit of those confessing Christians who blabber on about this theologically absurd (technically blastphemous) idea of state healthcare/welfare.  Denathors that they are, they truly dishearten me and should know better.  I dare say their pastors have failed them.  Socialized medicine has both spiritually and physically devastating consequences.  Lets look away from decades of government failure, not toward it.

With that, probably having offended too much, I'll take a break.  Good debate as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in most polls you would need to know how the question was asked. If you ask do you want medical care for all Americans and do that via Medicare most people would say yes. If you asked the same question but added that Medicare payments that is currently taken out of your check would go up a certain percentage to help cover the costs you would get a different answer. Then for those currently paying into Insurance through their company if they compared how much more you would pay in Medicare costs to how much you would save  on Insurance payments depending on whether you saved money or paid more it would influence how people responded.

My point is asking people for their views on Medicare for all without explaining al the different possibilities is basically to influence the discussion without providing all the required information to make an informed decision.

I am not taking sides for or against Medicare for all or some other form of Universal healthcare until I see a comprehensive proposal of exactly what you will get what you will pay and how decisions on what treatments will be allowed are made. Any universal plan just like with Insurance provides healthcare involves some form of healthcare rationing. Rationing healthcare is an ugly term but it is a reality in keeping costs down. How the rationing is done is the difference. How do you get new experimental treatments in if they are not on the plan for covered costs

There are no easy answers but both sides need to sit down and discuss the things that both have bypassed in the past ACA did nothing to address the actual cost of HealthCare which is increasing much faster than inflation. There is to much duplication of services in some wealthy areas where hospitals run at 20-30% of capacity causing higher fees to pay for unused areas of the hospitals. How do we fund medicine in  Rural areas with low population density and large distances  to providers, How do we get Doctors into those Rural areas, How do we lower the cost of a Medical Degree so doctors don't start out life in debt. How do we get rid of bad doctors? 

What can we learn both good and bad from countries currently doing Universal Healthcare. Can we use that information to create our own system. 

Can we have a single patient database for the whole country where each persons medical history is kept and is available with the proper safeguards as to who can access it the cost of maintaining that database either payed for by insurance companies or by the medical community  in some manner TBD.

 

Currently each Insurance company has a database or databases as do individual Hospitals, Doctors have to tie into multiple hospitals databases and Insurance company databases. A single Database or a few databases used by all would simplify things and reduce costs.  Then the big issue who would create and maintain the database would it be a single company a consortium of companies. These are the things that need to be discussed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

As in most polls you would need to know how the question was asked. If you ask do you want medical care for all Americans and do that via Medicare most people would say yes. If you asked the same question but added that Medicare payments that is currently taken out of your check would go up a certain percentage to help cover the costs you would get a different answer. Then for those currently paying into Insurance through their company if they compared how much more you would pay in Medicare costs to how much you would save  on Insurance payments depending on whether you saved money or paid more it would influence how people responded.

Good point but I expect the objective of the poll was to show a huge amount of support for a new government paid medical program.....so don't tell people too much about what might be involved. ..remember ACA. 

Medicare does not pay everything, Medicare is not free to retirees (money deducted from my Soc Sec check)  and frequently there are doctors who will not take Medicare patients because the reimbursements are so low.    The general public does not really know what Medicare is all about.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maxwere said:

If by "we" you mean The State, then no we don't have an obligation to do anything positive for anyone.  Likewise, you have no right to eat the food or water of others.  You DO have the right to NOT have your food or water eaten by others.  Charity is a function of individual choice and personal conscience.

Since you asked... Circumstantially, I have the obligation to help my brother/neighbor or even enemy.  That is my personal obligation as a confessing Christian via my priestly office imputed through Christs sacrifice (Mt 20, Heb 7, 1 Pt 2:9) (summarily known as the priesthood of all believers).  It is not an obligation of the state or even non-believers (though it might be expected of an Aw-bun man).  Yes, individuals in this country are still compassionate in ways other countries are not.  That has a lot to do with 500 years of moral capital built by the spread of Christianity, the church and particularly protestant reformation in the west.  It is the backbone of the DoI and how the framers would have us interpret.  I say this partially as an attempt to fully answer your question @homersapien openly, but primarily for the benefit of those confessing Christians who blabber on about this theologically absurd (technically blastphemous) idea of state healthcare/welfare.  Denathors that they are, they truly dishearten me and should know better.  I dare say their pastors have failed them.  Socialized medicine has both spiritually and physically devastating consequences.  Lets look away from decades of government failure, not toward it.

With that, probably having offended too much, I'll take a break.  Good debate as usual.

Man, that's just totally Frelled. :no:

(But I admit I didn't get past the first paragraph.) 

Later.  Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maxwere said:

If by "we" you mean The State, then no we don't have an obligation to do anything positive for anyone.  Likewise, you have no right to eat the food or water of others.  You DO have the right to NOT have your food or water eaten by others.  Charity is a function of individual choice and personal conscience.

Since you asked... Circumstantially, I have the obligation to help my brother/neighbor or even enemy.  That is my personal obligation as a confessing Christian via my priestly office imputed through Christs sacrifice (Mt 20, Heb 7, 1 Pt 2:9) (summarily known as the priesthood of all believers).  It is not an obligation of the state or even non-believers (though it might be expected of an Aw-bun man).  Yes, individuals in this country are still compassionate in ways other countries are not.  That has a lot to do with 500 years of moral capital built by the spread of Christianity, the church and particularly protestant reformation in the west.  It is the backbone of the DoI and how the framers would have us interpret.  I say this partially as an attempt to fully answer your question @homersapien openly, but primarily for the benefit of those confessing Christians who blabber on about this theologically absurd (technically blastphemous) idea of state healthcare/welfare.  Denathors that they are, they truly dishearten me and should know better.  I dare say their pastors have failed them.  Socialized medicine has both spiritually and physically devastating consequences.  Lets look away from decades of government failure, not toward it.

With that, probably having offended too much, I'll take a break.  Good debate as usual.

You know, this is what I expect from a "Country Club Church" attender. But what do I know? According to the teachings of Christ, I am to render to Ceasar those things that belong to the Ceasar, or more contemporaneously, I am to render to the State those things that belong to the State. I think Christ was likely thinking ahead to this time when he made that statement. 

Not to offend, but do you attend First Baptist of Laodicea?  :big:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You know, this is what I expect from a "Country Club Church" attender. But what do I know? According to the teachings of Christ, I am to render to Ceasar those things that belong to the Ceasar, or more contemporaneously, I am to render to the State those things that belong to the State. I think Christ was likely thinking ahead to this time when he made that statement. 

Not to offend, but do you attend First Baptist of Laodicea?  :big:

No offense taken, my friend... I did hear Martin Luther was a big golfer.  Likewise Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Cramner... ?

So, given 10000 manuscripts, 23,000 verses, two ancient languages, you are comfortable selecting 2-3 English snippets (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's) to form the sum and substance of biblical teaching on The State?  Caesar, specifically Tiberius, was a known pedophile, slave master, tyrannt etc.  Jesus, being omniscient as He is, is presumably aware.  So, Jesus is saying "render unto Caesar his slave harem" or "render unto Caesar his young boys for sexual proclivity"?  Under Roman law, those things are Caesars, right?  That's the logical interpretation of this literal statement is it not?  Does that sound like Jesus's intent?

Consider: At trial, Jesus was accused of teaching against the tribute to Caesar.

Quote

Luke 23: Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”

Likewise another teaching: Mt 28:18

Quote

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So we must conclude he was simply "teaching" the Pharisees to "pay your/their taxes"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, maxwere said:

No offense taken, my friend... I did hear Martin Luther was a big golfer.  Likewise Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Cramner... ?

So, given 10000 manuscripts, 23,000 verses, two ancient languages, you are comfortable selecting 2-3 English snippets (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's) to form the sum and substance of biblical teaching on The State?  Caesar, specifically Tiberius, was a known pedophile, slave master, tyrannt etc.  Jesus, being omniscient as He is, is presumably aware.  So, Jesus is saying "render unto Caesar his slave harem" or "render unto Caesar his young boys for sexual proclivity"?  Under Roman law, those things are Caesars, right?  That's the logical interpretation of this literal statement is it not?  Does that sound like Jesus's intent?

Consider: At trial, Jesus was accused of teaching against the tribute to Caesar.

Likewise another teaching: Mt 28:18

So we must conclude he was simply "teaching" the Pharisees to "pay your/their taxes"?

 

I played a round or two with ML I would say about a 3 handicapper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2018 at 11:38 AM, maxwere said:

No offense taken, my friend... I did hear Martin Luther was a big golfer.  Likewise Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Cramner... ?

So, given 10000 manuscripts, 23,000 verses, two ancient languages, you are comfortable selecting 2-3 English snippets (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's) to form the sum and substance of biblical teaching on The State?  Caesar, specifically Tiberius, was a known pedophile, slave master, tyrannt etc.  Jesus, being omniscient as He is, is presumably aware.  So, Jesus is saying "render unto Caesar his slave harem" or "render unto Caesar his young boys for sexual proclivity"?  Under Roman law, those things are Caesars, right?  That's the logical interpretation of this literal statement is it not?  Does that sound like Jesus's intent?

Consider: At trial, Jesus was accused of teaching against the tribute to Caesar.

Likewise another teaching: Mt 28:18

So we must conclude he was simply "teaching" the Pharisees to "pay your/their taxes"?

 

2

OMG, i just read this one. I smell the overwhelming scent of bible college burnout. 

You do realize that your commentary could literally be made about just about anything discourse worthy, correct? Anything people have discussed or advocated would have the same number of issues with versions, copies, commentaries, essays, etc. Do we discard everything then? God Forbid!

Submission of the Jews to Roman taxation was not the only thing to consider. Jews were just as furious, HELL MORE FURIOUS, with Roman rule and authority. The whole Maccabean Period, with Masada etc was not because of taxation. Do you think the Jews committed mass suicide at Masada over the frickin tax code? The Jews were looking for the Messiah, THE LEADER, THE ONE, not a frickin tax lawyer. 

Christ implored his believers over an over to "take care of the least of these." 
I am expecting a lecture on rugged individualism and "The Lawd halps those that halp themselves." You know, another good dose of Brother Better-than-you sermonizing than good ole bible understanding.

Look, I could make this about business competitiveness, cost controls, fairness, Overall health of a nation, and many other rationales, but by the end of the day, it just is the right thing to do. If you cant see that, that is on you. Fairness, justice, Godly Admonishment, etc. all should lead one to conclude that nationalized healthcare should be for all. 

I can explain it to you, i cant comprehend it for you.
If 
you dont have a heart for others, who do you have a heart for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Christ implored his believers over an over to "take care of the least of these." 
I am expecting a lecture on rugged individualism...

I agree with this platitude.   Never debated, in fact.  The problem with you’re argument, how do you conflate “his believers” with “the state”?   Should believers petition an organization (of State), (ethically) outside “the believers” (the church), who doesn’t keep the commandments of Christ (1st, 2nd, 8th, 10th) to do his work?

This is a grave error.

In fact, it has been tried before to epic failure.  Francoist Spain (Fascism).

Footnote: Debating sentiment on message board is quite silly (as is possibly debating anything).  I don’t question anyone’s heart, emotions, feelings etc.  That’s an Ad Hominem approach.  In reality, we both want the same outcome (lower healthcare costs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/27/2018 at 9:22 AM, homersapien said:

I am for universal coverage.  It's a basic human right.

While a for-profit system nicely address one's desire for an automobile or a new home, I don't see how they advance the goal of providing healthcare insurance for everyone.  If anything, the profit motive works against that.

It's absolutely NOT a basic human right. 

Which is why it isn't in the Bill Of Rights.

Nothing that requires another citizen to provide it for you is a basic human right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

It's absolutely NOT a basic human right. 

Which is why it isn't in the Bill Of Rights.

Nothing that requires another citizen to provide it for you is a basic human right.

Welcome aboard. Post often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2018 at 2:17 PM, homersapien said:

I was asked why I thought medical services should be considered a right.  I consider it providing such care a moral obligation as a human, but the person asking seemed to be referring more to a legal reason.

Last time I checked, even a poor person receives attention if they fall over on the street or are hit by a car in this country. Why is that the case if we don't consider healthcare to be a basic right? 

Would you prefer it otherwise? 

Should we as a country determine no one has a "right" to medical attention or no "right" to eat?   Should we let people - of any age - bleed or starve to death because the free market system won't provide them such needs?

There's a big difference between deciding as a civil society that we would LIKE to provide certain services for all citizens and claiming that citizens are OWED those services simply for existing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing about healthcare...

First...the words "healthcare" and "health insurance" are NOT the same thing.  Politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have intentionally taught people to use those terms interchangeably, but they are not synonymous.  Why is that important?  Because you can receive healthCARE without health INSURANCE.  You just pay for it and you get the care.  Just as importantly, maybe more so, just because you have health INSURANCE doesn't mean you will have your healthCARE paid for. 

That goes for government insurance too.

In fact, if government insurance becomes universal, it's going to become more and more true of it.

Secondly, health care is like a triangle.  On one side is cost, one side is quality, and the third point is quantity.  Assuming that the word "improves" means that costs go down and quality and quantity go up, there is NO WAY to improve all three of those things.  You may improve one, but it's going to be at the cost of one or more of the others deteriorating.

People who want government provided health care insurance ignore both of these factors.  They allow themselves to think that the goal is to provide health insurance without making the crucial distinction between care and insurance, and they also ignore the simple fact of the triangle I just described.  Because they ignore these things, they imagine a world in which everyone has health insurance that actually pays for all the care someone needs.

Simply thinking about it in practical terms renders that conception obviously naive.

Given the triangle model, when people who favor government provided health care talk about "reducing the cost of health care," there's only two ways to do that, and both of them have costs.  

1.  Reduce Quality.  That's what happens when you reduce reimbursements.  Doctors who are used to being reimbursed $100 for a procedure by BC/BS are going to necessarily have to react against a universal government policy that reimburses $65 for the same service.  Are we "reducing health care costs" by doing that?  Yeah.  But it's going to cost you. 

First of all, it costs a lot of money—and not just in tuition costs; also in opportunity costs while continuing years of additional school and residencies while your peers your age are making full salaries and putting away money for retirement—and time and effort and sacrifice to become a doctor.  There's definitely a threshold  below which the profession will definitely no longer attract the best and brightest.  Quality suffers.

Secondly, the less money there is from the ground up, the less money there is to upgrade equipment and hire the best staff members.  When you walk in your doctor's office ten years after universal government insurance hits and notice that she's using an x-ray machine from 1985, that's why. 

And that goes all the way up the chain.  People love to ask, "Well why can they do it in Japan, or etc., etc.," and one of the reasons why is that the rest of the world drafts heavily on the United States in terms of medical R&D.  Medicine is still for profit here, and you should thank God for that the next time you need a procedure done that is heavily technologically dependent, because that technology probably wouldn't exist if we were like everybody else.

So yet again, quality suffers.

Third, government insurance is the most onerous, red tape dependent, time intensive, labor intensive, pedantic, and frustrating payor in existence.  Anyone who does not believe this is invited to come to my clinic for a week and be the person assigned to call Medicare.  I promise you will believe it after that week.  People criticize commercial insurance for so much of the money going to administrative work...baby, you ain't seen nothing 'till you've seen the staggering inefficiency and pedantic time wasting tour de force of Medicare.

So, if government insurance was universal, expenses would go up in your doctor's offfice. 

So it costs the doctor more, but we're going to pay her less.  What do you think the outcome of that formula is guaranteed to be?

2.  Reduce Quantity.  But no, you say...EVERYONE would have healthcare.  But see, when you say that, you mean everyone would have health INSURANCE.  Let's say the government decides to "reduce costs of health care" by reviewing procedures and denying many of them.  Again, the've taught you to conflate the terms, so they know you won't notice.  So you have insurance, but the government informs you that they won't be paying for XYZ procedure because they have determined that it isn't "medically necessary."

(At this point I raise a side bar to caution you to please not allow yourself to be fooled by that term.  The dictionary definition of those words has no bearing here.  The common sense meanings of those words have no bearing here.  That is a term coined back in the 80s (I think) and it has no bearing on anything except what the insurance payor danes it to mean.)

So what is the effect of this tactic?  That's right.  Reducing quantity.  See, "quantity" doesn't just refer to the number of people for whom care may be provided for, it also means the range of CARE that will also be provided.  If I cover everyone with insurance but deny 1/3 of the claims sent in, I've reduced the amount of health care provided while covering everyone!  It's a great shell game.

It's just not possible to improve one without deteriorating one or more of the others.  Once you accept that, and you consider the folly of 3rd party pay in the first place, you can see that universal government insurance is the very worst model possible.  It combines the worst of all worlds.  It's the very worst thing that we could do.

I have more to post about the folly of 3rd party pay, but no more time to post.  Will be back when I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...