Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean when you say "health care" and "insurance".

[/ QUOTE ]

Health Care = Getting care that I need when I'm sick

Insurance = Something that sucks money out of my pocket when I'm not sick

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a really retarded way of looking at it. And it doesn't really answer my question.

What most people refer to as health "insurance" in the US is actually no such thing. It's more of a managed care plan, which includes uninsurable services like routine checkups, immunizations for kids, physicals. That type of stuff, which is a major portion of "health care" is NOT insurable.

So when you say insurance, what do you think should be "covered" by insurance?

[ QUOTE ]
As it is, your Health INSURANCE is NOT going to cover the costs of your Health CARE. Fix that problem, I don't care how you do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this a problem? My car insurance doesn't cover the costs of my car CARE. It doesn't cover oil changes. Or tires. Or brakes.

Why are you asking *me* to "fix" this problem?

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody's brought up any ideas that will do that. Therefore, I'll give the "monopoly insurance" a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think everyone else should be drug along to suffer the consquences of your wild guessing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, to put this another way. I'm 0% interested in having health "insurance" that won't help me if I'm sick. I AM interested in having health "care" that will pay for prevention, as it keeps costs down ACROSS THE BOARD. Those things may be uninsurable NOW, while we let the insurance companies write the laws. Can you think of a reason that these things CANNOT be paid for?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are upset because you think insurance companies are writing the laws and this leads to inefficiences...so your solution is to make 100% SURE that insurance companies write the laws, by making the law-writers the insurance-providers. This seems excellent.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
Ugh, we already had this debate in that thread. I'll break it down for everyone:

Almost everyone that posts in the 2+2 Politics forum favors private health care, unlike the rest of America.
Two or three posters favor "free healthcare for everyone" as well as bullets made of chocolate and bunnies and sunshine. And higher taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2528357.shtml

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how anyone could look at what our government is doing now and has done throughout history and think it would be a good idea to give them a few trillion more bucks for any reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To transfer power and control to a more democratizing force than unnacountable profit driven tyrannies?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how anyone could look at what our government is doing now and has done throughout history and think it would be a good idea to give them a few trillion more bucks for any reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To transfer power and control to a more unaccountable, tyrannical, monopolistic force than accountable profit driven businesses?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, to put this another way. I'm 0% interested in having health "insurance" that won't help me if I'm sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also 0% interested in that.

WTF is this "health care insurance" that you're talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
I AM interested in having health "care" that will pay for prevention, as it keeps costs down ACROSS THE BOARD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're going to pay the "health care plan" provider (whether this is a government provided plan or privately-provided) and then that provider would pay the doctor?

What's great about this vs. just paying yourself directly?

[ QUOTE ]
Those things may be uninsurable NOW, while we let the insurance companies write the laws. Can you think of a reason that these things CANNOT be paid for?

[/ QUOTE ]

"able to be paid for" is not the same as "uninsurable". They aren't uninsurable because of any laws, they're uninsurable because of HOW INSURANCE WORKS. It's NOT INSURANCE if it covers things you KNOW you're going to have to pay for.

Let's give an example.

When you wake up in the morning, you're going to need to eat breakfast. This costs money.

Do you think a "breakfast insurance" plan, where you pay me and then I buy you some breakfast in the event that you need to eat breakfast, makes any sense?

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean when you say "health care" and "insurance".

[/ QUOTE ]

Health Care = Getting care that I need when I'm sick

Insurance = Something that sucks money out of my pocket when I'm not sick

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a really retarded way of looking at it. And it doesn't really answer my question.

What most people refer to as health "insurance" in the US is actually no such thing. It's more of a managed care plan, which includes uninsurable services like routine checkups, immunizations for kids, physicals. That type of stuff, which is a major portion of "health care" is NOT insurable.

So when you say insurance, what do you think should be "covered" by insurance?

[ QUOTE ]
As it is, your Health INSURANCE is NOT going to cover the costs of your Health CARE. Fix that problem, I don't care how you do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this a problem? My car insurance doesn't cover the costs of my car CARE. It doesn't cover oil changes. Or tires. Or brakes.

Why are you asking *me* to "fix" this problem?

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody's brought up any ideas that will do that. Therefore, I'll give the "monopoly insurance" a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think everyone else should be drug along to suffer the consquences of your wild guessing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, to put this another way. I'm 0% interested in having health "insurance" that won't help me if I'm sick. I AM interested in having health "care" that will pay for prevention, as it keeps costs down ACROSS THE BOARD. Those things may be uninsurable NOW, while we let the insurance companies write the laws. Can you think of a reason that these things CANNOT be paid for?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are upset because you think insurance companies are writing the laws and this leads to inefficiences...so your solution is to make 100% SURE that insurance companies write the laws, by making the law-writers the insurance-providers. This seems excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you think that's what I'm saying, then you can knock down that straw man.

I WANT A SOLOUTION. I don't care WHO gets it done. The current system is NOT getting it done. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD show me how a private system is better, and I'll gladly jump on board.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can afford it. In fact, contrary to what you beleive, real insurance is quite affordable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disbelieve that insurance is affordable. I pay it every month. I DO disbelieve that insurance will cover the costs of your health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you buying it, then?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, to put this another way. I'm 0% interested in having health "insurance" that won't help me if I'm sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also 0% interested in that.

WTF is this "health care insurance" that you're talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
I AM interested in having health "care" that will pay for prevention, as it keeps costs down ACROSS THE BOARD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're going to pay the "health care plan" provider (whether this is a government provided plan or privately-provided) and then that provider would pay the doctor?

What's great about this vs. just paying yourself directly?

[ QUOTE ]
Those things may be uninsurable NOW, while we let the insurance companies write the laws. Can you think of a reason that these things CANNOT be paid for?

[/ QUOTE ]

"able to be paid for" is not the same as "uninsurable". They aren't uninsurable because of any laws, they're uninsurable because of HOW INSURANCE WORKS. It's NOT INSURANCE if it covers things you KNOW you're going to have to pay for.

Let's give an example.

When you wake up in the morning, you're going to need to eat breakfast. This costs money.

Do you think a "breakfast insurance" plan, where you pay me and then I buy you some breakfast in the event that you need to eat breakfast, makes any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

What he means by insurance is the same thing most people mean, subsidies from the rich.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how anyone could look at what our government is doing now and has done throughout history and think it would be a good idea to give them a few trillion more bucks for any reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To transfer power and control to a more democratizing force than unnacountable profit driven tyrannies?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

What are some examples of unaccountable profit driven tryannies that you are afraid of here? Also, is the group you want to give more power to the same US government behind the war in Vietnam, the war on drugs, the war in Iraq, torture in prisons everywhere, etc etc, and any number of other stuff that gets done by this super duper powerful "democratizing force"?

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
I AM interested in having health "care" that will pay for prevention, as it keeps costs down ACROSS THE BOARD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're going to pay the "health care plan" provider (whether this is a government provided plan or privately-provided) and then that provider would pay the doctor?

What's great about this vs. just paying yourself directly?[ QUOTE ]


What's great about prices increasing almost 10% every year while wages stay flat? What's great about a system that has all the loopholes to deny coverage, or refuse you when you have a PEC? I just want to make sure that the money that I pay for health care ACTUALLY INSURES THAT I GET HEALTH CARE WHEN I NEED IT.

[ QUOTE ]
Those things may be uninsurable NOW, while we let the insurance companies write the laws. Can you think of a reason that these things CANNOT be paid for?

[/ QUOTE ]

"able to be paid for" is not the same as "uninsurable". They aren't uninsurable because of any laws, they're uninsurable because of HOW INSURANCE WORKS. It's NOT INSURANCE if it covers things you KNOW you're going to have to pay for.

Let's give an example.

When you wake up in the morning, you're going to need to eat breakfast. This costs money.

Do you think a "breakfast insurance" plan, where you pay me and then I buy you some breakfast in the event that you need to eat breakfast, makes any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That's pretty ridiculous. It's been shown that preventave measures keep prices down for health care across the board. Isn't it more EFFICENT to make sure that everybody gets check-ups before problems get worse? I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have a insurance plan that DOES plan for things that I'm going to be paying for, rather than making me pay for it myself. How is this confusing? How it is not possible?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The problems with the US healthcare system are caused by too much socialism, not too little. We've *had* socialized medicine for more than 40 years, ever since medicaid and medicare socialized healthcare for the poor and elderly, who conse the bulk of healthcare services. The most powerful union in the nation is the AMA, whch greatly restricts the supply of doctors, damatically increasing costs. Health insurance has literally thousands of mandates that prevent competition from operating, skyrocketting the costs there. Goveremt mandates treatment be given at capped prices which offsets costs onto those paying out of pocket or with private insurance, again increasing both medical and insurance costs. As insurance premiums skyrocket due to governent interventions, more and more people choose not to buy private insurance, increasing the premiums for the remaining suckers and increasing the pressure to socialize the insurance industry. Mandated treatments with taxpayers picking up the bill cause a tremendous increase in demand, restrction in supply, shortages to patients who most need care because it is misallocated to those that don't and cause further skyrocketting costs to taxpayers. The price caps cause medical providers to avoid shifting resources to the capped services, distoring the structure of the industry further.

In every industry that is not heavily regulated or outright nationalized or socialized, like consumer electronics, prices fall over time as increasing productivity reduces the costs of production. This is masked by monetary inflation, but is still obvious for say computers. But all industries that are heavily regulated, intervened in or outright socialized or nationalized see costs skyrocket, such as health insurance, health care, public education, roads, police, courts, you name it. Quality and service suck, costs are sky high.

The US spends more on healthcare because wears fatter than the rest of the world. We also are more wealthy, can meet basic needs like food shelter energy and transport with a smaller fraction of our income leaving more to spend on healthcare. The "worse health outcomes" is similarly a crock; we're fatter and that has a lot of negative health impacts, thus the higher spending.

And before someone brings it up if they haven't already, the claim that government run health systems are more efficient than the private sector is also a crock. Medicaid and Medicare simply foist off the cost of administration and compliance onto the provders, shifting those costs off the goverment books and onto the backs of consumers. Furthermore the cost of pure regulatory compliance is gigantic, further distorting the cost of private health care provision.

There is one area of human medicine where the amount of government intervention is at a minimum: plastic surgery. Fake [censored] and new noses are not covered by Medicaid and Medicare yet, and hence the price of plastic surgery is plunging.

Also, I think it I'd terrible that I can get faster and cheaper health care for my dog than for my wife, but it is unsurprising, since destroying the veterinary care industry has not been a high priority for politicians for four decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT