Insurance company denies treatment for a 5 year old

[WhipperSnapper]

I dont really see your point. If given to a vote people would reject Britains system in the United States as well based on the same reasoning.

I'm far from convinced of that, at least not if the American people were informed about the matter. How do you think most Americans would vote if they had a choice of the following?

(1) Spend 17% of the GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and/or health insurance with hundreds of thousands of medical cost-induced bankruptcies every year and businesses and an economy burdened by insurance concerns. One benefit of this system is that it allows wealthy insurance company CEOs and executives to purchase five new yachts every year.

(2) Spend (say) 13% of the GDP (if that) while having 100% coverage, a more relaxed populace, zero medical bankruptcies, and businesses and an economy not burdened by insurance concerns. However, wealthy insurance company CEOs and executives will no longer be able to afford five new yachts each year (oh the horror!).

Which one do you think Americans would vote for?

 

[Patranus]

You missed my point. My point was not that they would reject the American system because it is not the system they currently have and they are ignorant and filled with nationalist price, but rather that they would vote to reject the American system because they think it is a huge failure on the merits.

What are "the merits"?
People work and buy insurance. People get to pick and choose their coverage.
People who do not work can walk into any hospital and receive care regardless of their age, sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, legal status, or ability to pay.

 

[Genx87]

I'm far from convinced of that, at least not if the American people were informed about the matter. How do you think most Americans would vote if they had a choice of the following?

(1) Spend 17% of the GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and/or health insurance with hundreds of thousands of medical cost-induced bankruptcies every year and businesses and an economy burdened by insurance concerns. One benefit of this system is that it allows wealthy insurance company CEOs to purchase five new yachts every year.

(2) Spend (say) 13% of the GDP (if that) while having 100% coverage, a more relaxed populace, zero medical bankruptcies, and businesses and an economy not burdened by insurance concerns. However, this comes at the cost of having wealthy insurance company CEOs who will no longer be able to afford five new yachts each year (oh the horror!).

Which one do you think Americans would vote for?

Well in your fairy tale scenario option 2 for sure as current polls show people are overwhelmingly more worried about the costs of the system vs coverage for the uninsured.

A more realistic poll question would look like this.

1. Socialized healthcare that covers everybody for 17% of GDP
2. Publc\Private healthcare that covers almost everybody for 17% GDP

I think you would be surprised how many pick #2.

 

[Patranus]

I'm far from convinced of that, at least not if the American people were informed about the matter. How do you think most Americans would vote if they had a choice of the following?

(1) Spend 17% of the GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and/or health insurance with hundreds of thousands of medical cost-induced bankruptcies every year and businesses and an economy burdened by insurance concerns. One benefit of this system is that it allows wealthy insurance company CEOs and executives to purchase five new yachts every year.

(2) Spend (say) 13% of the GDP (if that) while having 100% coverage, a more relaxed populace, zero medical bankruptcies, and businesses and an economy not burdened by insurance concerns. However, wealthy insurance company CEOs and executives will no longer be able to afford five new yachts each year (oh the horror!).

Which one do you think Americans would vote for?

Well, we have this thing called the Constitution, you might of heard of it. I think we fought a war over it but I might be mistaken.

 

[Xellos2099]

Life does have a value. For example, if an old man is dying and there is a medicine to save him but it will cost as much as usa annual GDP, would you do it? Is the life of one person worth as much as the livelihood of people in entire country?

 

[Blackjack200]

Well, we have this thing called the Constitution, you might of heard of it. I think we fought a war over it but I might be mistaken.

We also have this thing called a liberty bell. I think we rang it once or twice and then broke it, but I might be mistaken.

 

[Patranus]

NM

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well in your fairy tale scenario option 2 for sure as current polls show people are overwhelmingly more worried about the costs of the system vs coverage for the uninsured.

A more realistic poll question would look like this.

1. Socialized healthcare that covers everybody for 17% of GDP
2. Publc\Private healthcare that covers almost everybody for 17% GDP

I think you would be surprised how many pick #2.

But other nations that have socialized medicine spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health insurance. I think Japan and Taiwan are even under 7% or 8/%.

By eliminating the hundreds of thousands of people in the system who are not involved with actually providing health care but rather with pushing paper around--insurance company employees, medical billing specialists, insurance brokers, employee benefits plans employees, etc., and also by treating people before their conditions worsen we can realize a huge amount of savings that will allow us to have full coverage while perhaps spending a smaller amount of our GDP on health care. It's been proven to work in other nations.

(Anyone who's interested in learning more is encouraged to watch this excellent documentary about how other first world nations do it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ )

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well, we have this thing called the Constitution, you might of heard of it. I think we fought a war over it but I might be mistaken.

The Interstate Commerce Clause allows the government to establish socialized medicine if it wants. Furthermore, the people could just simply amend the Constitution.

In your view, are public schools and the Interstate highway system unconstitutional?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What are "the merits"?

By merits I mean, "based on the facts".

People work and buy insurance. People get to pick and choose their coverage.

Some people do. If you have a job and don't lose it and don't have any pre-existing conditions you might be able to afford to purchase insurance. Many people work poverty-wage jobs without benefits and cannot afford it, and many people who could otherwise afford it find that their pre-existing conditions leave them with few options.

Of course, this all assumes that your insurance company will actually cover you. Many have established Death Panels with employees who receive commissions for finding ways to rescind your coverage when you get sick.

People who do not work can walk into any hospital and receive care regardless of their age, sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, legal status, or ability to pay.

...in a manner that is very inefficient and inflicts even greater costs on those people who can pay for it. Of course, those people will also end up being bankrupted and will lose whatever meager wealth and possessions they do have if they don't have insurance.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We also have this thing called a liberty bell. I think we rang it once or twice and then broke it, but I might be mistaken.

The issue is, would we have more actual "liberty" under real socialized medicine or more liberty under truly laissez-faire capitalist medicine?

 

[jonks]

The issue is, would we have more actual "liberty" under real socialized medicine or more liberty under truly laissez-faire capitalist medicine?

Under true laissez-faire capitalist medicine we might have more liberty but there'd be fewer people living. Pre-existing condition? Denied. Cancer? Dropped. So long and thanks for all the premiums.

 

[shira]

Blackjack200[/B]] Hmm, sounds like the FDA and the insurance company are acting like a "death panel" to me.

No one is acting like a death panel, the parents still could out right pay for the treatment.

Maybe with a loan, but oh wait if the loan is denied I guess the bank or lender would be a "death panel" too.

I prefer to think if these kinds of decisions as ultra-late-term abortions.

 

[BladeVenom]

But other nations that have socialized medicine spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health insurance. I think Japan and Taiwan are even under 7% or 8/%.

(Anyone who's interested in learning more is encouraged to watch this excellent documentary about how other first world nations do it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ )

So in addition to having a much healthier lifestyle and diet, "half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red." I would guess less lawsuits in Japan also, beside having a more efficient legal system.

 

[Fern]

The Interstate Commerce Clause allows the government to establish socialized medicine if it wants.
-snip-

Are you sure?

Did you mean the General Welfare Clause?

If you think the ICC allows for a socialized medical industry, I'd appreciated it if you'd take the time to explain.

Fern

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Under true laissez-faire capitalist medicine we might have more liberty but there'd be fewer people living. Pre-existing condition? Denied. Cancer? Dropped. So long and thanks for all the premiums.

I put liberty in quotes because in a broad sense I think we would end up having less actual freedom under real capitalism. For example, you would have the "freedom" not to have health insurance and die. You would have the "freedom" to hire an insurance lawyer to go over your insurance company's 1000 page, small print contract before you purchase it. You would have the "freedom" to sue your insurance company if it tried to deny you its contractually obligated coverage.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So in addition to having a much healthier lifestyle and diet, "half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red." I would guess less lawsuits in Japan also, beside having a more efficient legal system.

That probably plays a part, but is it large enough to account for a 10% difference in GDP expended?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Are you sure?

Did you mean the General Welfare Clause?

If you think the ICC allows for a socialized medical industry, I'd appreciated it if you'd take the time to explain.

Fern

Easy. The health of the citizens affects interstate commerce. For example, sick people might not be able to afford to travel across state lines and do business in other states. Also, if the nation's current health care system is inefficient resulting in people's spending more money than they otherwise would on health care, they'll have less money to spend on activities related to Interstate Commerce.

It doesn't take much to satisfy the Interstate Commerce Clause according to the Supreme Court.

Of course, this entire discussion presupposes that we are using the Constitution as our basis for morality; that is to say, that anything written in the Constitution is something we should support. Fern, had you lived in 1810 would have you have supported those parts of the Constitution that allowed for slavery? That's why I find these Constitutional objections to be rather silly; we can and should amend the Constitution to allow good public policy if it contradicts good public policy.

 

[shira]

The issue is, would we have more actual "liberty" under real socialized medicine or more liberty under truly laissez-faire capitalist medicine?

"The issue" (as you put it) is maximizing liberty only if liberty is the only good. Clearly, it's not, despite what libertarians claim.

Furthermore, just what constitutes "liberty" isn't at all clear. If (say) there's absolutely no government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and businesses are free to pollute with impunity, does that maximize liberty? How about if we factor in that the climate becomes so hostile that it isn't safe to life in coastal areas, food production plummets (leading to mass starvation), and life expectancy is reduced by 15 years?

I claim that the access of even the poorest members of society to decent health care is an essential form of liberty; but I also see that furthering that liberty will inevitably place constraints on the freedom of action of insurance companies and other arms of the health industry. You probably think "freedom to act" is all that liberty is, and can't see past big bad government interfering with free markets. Good luck with that.

 

[Fern]

Easy. The health of the citizens affects interstate commerce. For example, sick people might not be able to afford to travel across state lines and do business in other states. Also, if the nation's current health care system is inefficient resulting in people's spending more money than they otherwise would on health care, they'll have less money to spend on activities related to Interstate Commerce.

It doesn't take much to satisfy the Interstate Commerce Clause according to the Supreme Court.

Of course, this entire discussion presupposes that we are using the Constitution as our basis for morality; that is to say, that anything written in the Constitution is something we should support. Fern, had you lived in 1810 would have you have supported those parts of the Constitution that allowed for slavery? That's why I find these Constitutional objections to be rather silly; we can and should amend the Constitution to allow good public policy if it contradicts good public policy.

Well, that's a novel argument, and one I expect you can guess that I don't agree with. The ICC was originally intended to prevent states from enacting self-serving laws/rules that discouraged interstate commerce, and IIRC, it's mostly been (improperly recently IMO) expanded to overrule states' rights. E.g., medical marjuanna laws.

I've long argued here for HC insurance reform, and this case is a good example. In a nutshell, I argue that we need a standard boilerplate type policy that provides real care. People can't be expected to understand what's in their policy now, and if there's a reasonable disagreement court is a poor choice for resolution. If we had a standard I believe that we would substantialy eliminate disagreement over what is allowed. Perhaps make the standard that of Medicare/Medicaid.

I've also long pointed out (and complained) that HC insurance doesn't prevent bankruptcy in cases of major medical needs, here's another example.

The minimum standards coverage in the HC proposal may help with these two problems, but I'm not optimistic.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

But other nations that have socialized medicine spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health insurance. I think Japan and Taiwan are even under 7% or 8/%.

By eliminating the hundreds of thousands of people in the system who are not involved with actually providing health care but rather with pushing paper around--insurance company employees, medical billing specialists, insurance brokers, employee benefits plans employees, etc., and also by treating people before their conditions worsen we can realize a huge amount of savings that will allow us to have full coverage while perhaps spending a smaller amount of our GDP on health care. It's been proven to work in other nations.

(Anyone who's interested in learning more is encouraged to watch this excellent documentary about how other first world nations do it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ )

That will require more rationing than we have now. Until we as a nation decide to ration we wont approach those levels of gdp. This very thread is proof of that. 2 million spent on one person and it isnt enough.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The issue is, would we have more actual "liberty" under real socialized medicine or more liberty under truly laissez-faire capitalist medicine?

easy - capitalist

liberty doesn't mean someone else provides for XYZ. liberty means you have a choice - capitalism would offer true choice - socialism wouldn't.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That will require more rationing than we have now. Until we as a nation decide to ration we wont approach those levels of gdp. This very thread is proof of that. 2 million spent on one person and it isnt enough.

Sure, but perhaps the rationing that would occur under socialized medicine would be more rational (not going to keep dying people alive for an extra month at a cost of $1 million) and less harmful than the rationing that occurs today (tens of millions uninsured or under-insured). I don't hear the British or the Canadians crying out about how they desperately want to adopt the American system, at least not middle class Canadians and British.

 

[Genx87]

Sure, but perhaps the rationing that would occur under socialized medicine would be more rational (not going to keep dying people alive for an extra month at a cost of $1 million) and less harmful than the rationing that occurs today (tens of millions uninsured or under-insured). I don't hear the British or the Canadians crying out about how they desperately want to adopt the American system, at least not middle class Canadians and British.

Possibly but that again would require us to make the tough decisions. And politicians will be in charge of making that decision. We cant even cut spending on needless functions of govt. I doubt we will see it happen in healthcare.

And I dont hear a whole hell of a lot of Americans wanting the candien and british systems. So we are back to this circular argument again.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

easy - capitalist

liberty doesn't mean someone else provides for XYZ. liberty means you have a choice - capitalism would offer true choice - socialism wouldn't.

There would be more "de jure" freedom under capitalist medicine but less "de facto" freedom.

And yes, I understand your implied point about how if one man's "liberty" requires the initiation of physical force against another man in order to pay for that "liberty" then it's not really "liberty" but slavery for the provider. Unfortunately, in the real world people don't exist as independent islands in a land of limitless resources, but rather exist as interdependent members of an advanced society in a world of finite resources where one man's actions (the exercise of his liberty) impose external costs (externalities) on other people in some sort of a way.

How do you think insurance would work under true capitalism?

• Are you really free if you need to hire a lawyer to read over 1000 pages of small print purposely loaded with misleading terms and "terms of art" that only highly-trained insurance law specialists could understand before you purchase the policy?
• Are you really free if your remedy for a violation of your contract is to hope that your cancer puts itself on hold while you await the outcome of your breach of contract lawsuit against the insurance company and its high-priced lawyers?
• Are you really free if being diagnosed with a disease proves to be a death sentence since no company in their right mind would want to insure you for it?
• Are you really free if when you are diagnosed with a disease your insurance premium skyrockets to stratospheric levels?
• Are you really free if there is an insurance oligopoly or cartel and all of the insurance companies have essentially the same policies?
• Are you really free if for whatever reason (wrong race, wrong religion, wrong sexual preference, wrong politics, falsely accused of child molestation, etc.) you are blacklisted by all of the insurance companies and they refuse to sell insurance to you? (In the real world capitalism won't necessarily end irrational discrimination because not all businessmen are rational and it's conceivable that irrational people could end up running businesses ala James Taggart or Orren Boyle.)
• Are you really free if the government no longer licenses or maintains standards for doctors and any quack can put up a sign and print a document and call himself a doctor? You can always sue him after the fact but what good does that do you when you're dead?
• Are you really free if the loss of your job and thus your ability to be able to pay for health insurance proves to be a death sentence?

As you can see, there are different kinds of liberty and having de jure liberty in one aspect could result in grave suffering and a de facto loss of liberty in other aspects. In other words, in reality, contrary to what Libertarians and Objectivists might believe, we cannot have absolute liberty. In reality, we need to grow up and focus on trying to maximize our legal liberties (de jure) and our actual liberty (de facto) in an interdependent world of externalities and limited resources.

I am also struck by just how confident the advocates of free market medicine and of capitalism are in their own abilities to produce wealth. They completely take for granted the possibility that they themselves might lose their jobs or their ability to work in their career fields or their ability to work at all. They fail to realize that having a reasonable social safety net is in their own rational selfish interests because they themselves may need it some day.