For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?

[Mad Cow]

[ QUOTE ]
Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

[/ QUOTE ] (Michael Moore's thoughts according of 'Michael Moore and socialized medicine')

This is a wild shortcut:

a) Other businesses deal with life-or-death issues. Should we also remove profit concerns from the transporation industry? I can think of dozens of other examples.
b) The entire insurance business lives with an inherent conflict, turning a profit vs. delivering a high quality and fair service when something bad happens. There is nothing special about health insurance at this point of view.

The insurance business has proven over ages to be a perfectly sensible type of business that benefits from normal market forces. I don’t see why it would be any different for health insurance. There are perfectly reasonable reasons why, as a society, we would want to have more legislative impact on health insurance than on pet insurance, though (for safety, fairness, ethical grounds, or whatever).

I like the Swiss system that makes health insurance compulsory on a personal basis (employers don’t get involved), but that entirely rely on 90 for-profit insurance businesses (2005). Folks who have difficulty paying can get financial assistance for their premiums – up to 100% for people really in need. The basic type of health insurance that you are entitled to is not fancy, but high quality, and all the big stuff is covered. Those who want to make sure that they always have a private room when in the hospital, or who want full coverage for alternative medicine, or whatever, can buy additional coverage. The maximum yearly deductible for the basic insurance is set between USD 230 and USD 1,900 + 10% of the cost over the deductible.

It can get somewhat expensive (USD 1,100 to USD 1,800 a year for the basic insurance with maximum deductible) [www.comparis.ch]). And those who can afford it (vast majority) pay 100% of it.

They seem to like it though. In March 2007, the people rejected in popular vote a socialized healthcare system with 71%.

Do you think that it is a type of system that would be accepted by a majority of US voters?

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So ridiculously stupid. This "argument" applies much more strongly to food than it does health care. Why don't we have "Universal Food Coverage", where a centralized bureaucracy plans the production and distribution of food? After all, it worked so well for China and the Soviet Union.

What he's saying is, "Because health care is so important, why don't we put it into the hands of the type of organization known to be the least efficient, the bureaucratic monopoly?"

What a tard.

Edit: All of which is off topic to your post about for profit compulsory insurance. The problem with this is that government cannot stop meddling with the insurance company, either. So People are compelled to pay exorbitant amounts for premiums that mostly cover risks that don't apply to them. More and more people will qualify for assistance to pay for the sky-rocketing insurance, until the whole system will be totaly socialized.

Insurance.

Hey, but I'm sure the insurers will LOVE it. What company wouldn't want the government to compel everyone by force to buy their products?

Universal pony coverage for everyone!

[Mad Cow]

[ QUOTE ]

What he's saying is, "Because health care is so important, why don't we put it into the hands of the type of organization known to be the least efficient, the bureaucratic monopoly?"

What a tard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul, you realize that "he" is Michael Moore, and I don't agree with him on this one, right?

Do we really have to decide how good or bad an administration would be at running this type of business? Why not simply make the case that normal market forces benefit the customer?

Ron Paul, do you think that US voters would accept a for-profit universal healthcare system?

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What he's saying is, "Because health care is so important, why don't we put it into the hands of the type of organization known to be the least efficient, the bureaucratic monopoly?"

What a tard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul, you realize that "he" is Michael Moore, and I don't agree with him on this one, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep; it was clear. Sorry if my response wasn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we really have to decide how good or bad an administration would be at running this type of business? Why not simply make the case that normal market forces benefit the customer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Consider it done.

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul, do you think that US voters would accept a for-profit universal healthcare system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it matter what the voters will or will not accept? It will be passed anyway, because it benefits a large number of extremely well funded and very aggressive special interest groups.

[Mad Cow]

A strong case can be made in favor of universal healthcare, either on economical grounds (e.g. it is not smart policy to let a worker go years without proper care for a chronic disease), or on moral grounds (e.g. it is wrong not to properly cure an elderly person who may have contributed a lot to society).

However, in the implementation phase, there is no reason to kill a competitive environment with a single government-managed insurance. Why not let normal market forces operate?

I like it, and I think that it would be acceptable to many US voters (not sure if a majority would agree, though). Some people will not like it because they think like Michael Moore, and others think that having 15% of uninsured people is better than a reform.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

However, in the implementation phase, there is no reason to kill a competitive environment with a single government-managed insurance. Why not let normal market forces operate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the market doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every dollar spent by the Gov on health care competes with those not receiving aid. In other words you wouldn't see (and don't see in the US) normal market forces you would see a heavily distorted market. Double whammy for those not receiving the subsidized health care, pay for someone else and then pay double for yourself.



[ QUOTE ]
Some people will not like it because they think like Michael Moore, and others think that having 15% of uninsured people is better than a reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

If health care is such a desirable good, why is it that many people do not have it? Find the root cause of the 15% before you go around proposing changes to alleviate it.

[Mad Cow]

Maybe because their get no or very little assistance from their employer, and that they make $12 / hour? For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida (my personal estimates – I might be off a little bit). When you make $25K / year, and let’s say care for one child, don’t you think that it is unbearable? And you can think of even worst situations...

It could be implemented by the government allocating a certain percentage of the total premiums paid to health insurance companies (by employers or individuals), and inject let’s say 5% of this value in assistance to uninsured folks who meet certain criteria (as defined by the IRS – revenue, number of dependents, and so on). It of course has an impact on the industry, but it’s only 5%, and it is surely not a bad thing to have more business from the government. Many industries depend __more__ from the government (defense contractors, engineering firms, etc), but it seems that it raises __less___ concerns.

What are you afraid of?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it cost this much? If everyone wants it ______ then there is huge incentive to find a way to produce ______ at prices that people can afford. Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased, entertainment prices have decreased, clothing prices have decreased, transportation prices have decreased, and health care prices are skyrocketing?

[ QUOTE ]
don’t you think that it is unbearable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an emotional argument, and a weak one at that. Billions of people throughout history have lived far worse lifestyles than this and borne it quite well.

[ QUOTE ]
Many industries depend __more__ from the government (defense contractors, engineering firms, etc), but it seems that it raises __less___ concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biggest 4 "public" expenditures in the US (when you include state and local level) are (in no particular order) the military, education, welfare (unemployment, medicaid, medicare, other welfare programs) and social security (another welfare program so big it needs its own category). In fact medicare and medicaid together received 20% more funding than the department of defense did in 2006.
There is no other industry in America so heavily tied to the government than the health care/insurance industry.

[ QUOTE ]
but it’s only 5%, and it is surely not a bad thing to have more business from the government

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its a terrible thing for consumers (read american citizens) for an industry to get more business from the government.

[ QUOTE ]
What are you afraid of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heights mostly, but also the fact that the majority of socialized medicine proponents have a non grasp of what is really going on.

[natedogg]

Why would you want to force someone to buy insurance?

I love that idea! Can I get a law passed that forces everyone to buy my services?

natedogg

[Mad Cow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it cost this much? If everyone wants it ______ then there is huge incentive to find a way to produce ______ at prices that people can afford. Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased, entertainment prices have decreased, clothing prices have decreased, transportation prices have decreased, and health care prices are skyrocketing?



[/ QUOTE ]

It costs that much because medicine is expensive. There is no way around it: if you want to provide decent and modern medicine, it costs real money.

Having an incentive to produce at prices that people can afford is not sufficient to magically make it a reality. Obviously, the incentive is not sufficient; otherwise there wouldn’t be 15% of uninsured people.

It is maybe easier to put in place in Switzlerland that has 10% or 12% of the employees who make less than $40K, with an unemployment rate of 3.3% (2006). The large majority of people end up paying their premiums without any assistance to the company of their choice, but I don’t see why it would not be possible in the US.

And nobody says that the government does have to pay for the entire premium of the folks who objectively cannot afford it on their own. In the fine-tuning, you can implement smart policies if you want to promote responsibility (e.g. maximum contribution of 40% of a basic package), national health (make the basic package non-smoker), or whatever you want to do...

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
don’t you think that it is unbearable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an emotional argument, and a weak one at that. Billions of people throughout history have lived far worse lifestyles than this and borne it quite well.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not emotional. It is a reality that some people cannot afford it. And there is nothing emotional in not finding the comparison with people throughout history not interesting (most died before age 30).