People who steal threads suck !!! (Socialism: Is it dead yet ?)

jaydee · Nov 26, 2000

Health insurance sucks.

<< Insurance is meant for extraordinary circumstances. You don't use car insurance to pay for oil changes or gasoline; you have it as protection in case you have a terrible accident or your car is stolen. You don't use homeowners' insurance to pay your electricity and water bills; you have it as protection in case a fire or other catastrophic event produces a large expense.

Obviously, any insurance policy that promises to cover every small, ordinary expense is going to be much more expensive than one that covers only extraordinary expenses.

The competition for employees has inspired employers to offer better and better health-care coverage. This has led to coverage that has become less like traditional insurance, and more like a free health-care service paying all your medical bills -- big and small. This has not only made coverage more expensive for employers, it has induced employees to take advantage of what seems to be free health care -- putting greater demands on health-care providers. That runs up the price for everyone.

When we repeal the income tax, there will no longer be an incentive for employers to furnish health care. Instead, they'll be free to compensate employees in a more appropriate way -- especially through higher wages. And you'll be able to purchase relatively inexpensive insurance that will pay for extraordinary expenses -- such as those connected with a bad accident or a life-threatening disease. Routine doctor visits will be much less expensive (because people paying for their own ordinary expenses will use doctors' services less frivolously) and you can handle them out-of-pocket -- just as you now pay for gasoline for your car or utility bills for your house. >>

DABANSHEE · Nov 26, 2000

You really beleive that crap don't you.

"The competition for employees has inspired employers to offer better and better health-care coverage:,

That's how market forces work. If you don't like it then start a depression, so there's plenty of dirt poor willing to work for buggerall, or move to parts of the 3rd world where Harry Brown's dream lives.

Michael · Nov 26, 2000

OK, here are my two cents on socialized medicine. As a bit of background, I am a Canadian who moved to the US. I moved when I was 24 and have spent ten years in the US. While in the US, I worked as an auditor for Becton Dickinson (medical products company) and Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (health insurance company).

Note - my thoughts on this issue will ruin whatever right-wing credentials I may have gained for arguing on the Republican side in the election threads.

My up front statement - I have an emotional basis for being pro-socialized medicine. I can't stand the thought of people being sick and dying because they did not have access to medical care.

There are four main goals that I see for a nation's healthcare system. Availability (enough medical care available and the right type of care available), quality (well trained medical staff and good equipment), affordability (people must be able to afford care when needed), and innovation (there must be sufficient incentive and funding to increase medical knowledge).

hmmm, this is going to take a while to develop. I'll do that offline and post later. Maybe you can comment on my four goals.

In the end, the discussion turns to what is the best way of balancing the four goals and the most efficient way of delivering them. In my discussion, I will give my thoughts on that.

Michael

jaydee · Nov 26, 2000

And the reason people are sick and dying is because of the cost not the coverage given out.
DEBANSHEE, It is utterly ridiculous for companies to be forced to pay for health insurance at this current rate. I don't know about you, but when I get paid, I'd rather get cold hard cash, then pay for Joe Shmoe who got the sniffles and had to pay $300 to see a doctor about it. Ever hear of personal responsibility? Why can't a system where people take care of themselves be implemented. Why does every one have to count on the government to save the day? They shouldn't. Read Iacocca, you'll find out the business world was not meant to dish out stock options and health and life insurance for every freakin part-time employee that will get fired for never showing up for work. BTW, you can't ignore history (something you know much of). Why then did you ignore the FACT of:

<< There was a time when health insurance was accessible to almost anyone at a modest price. But after 30 years of government intervention, insurance companies have been forced to restrict their polices and charge far more than many people can afford."
"Before the federal government intruded into health care in the 1960s, health care cost a fraction of today's prices, hospital stays didn't cost a year's wages, health insurance was a lot less expensive and accessible to virtually everyone on some basis, and doctors even made house calls."
>>

Eug · Nov 26, 2000

<< It is utterly ridiculous for companies to be forced to pay for health insurance at this current rate. I don't know about you, but when I get paid, I'd rather get cold hard cash, then pay for Joe Shmoe who got the sniffles and had to pay $300 to see a doctor about it. Ever hear of personal responsibility? >>

This is the argument used by the US business world but it ignores the facts.

1) The US system is a bad example for health insurance, because it happens to be by far the most expensive medical system in the world. It IS utterly ridiculous to have to pay that much money for your system. That is why reform is needed.
2) Because inner city Joe didn't go see the doctor about his cough, his TB went undiagnosed, and he infected the rest of his household, who now all have to be treated on the medicaid plan because they can't afford the expensive docs and hospitals. Under the current system, you ARE paying for that. Under another system with no care for the poor who can't afford it, they would die. Under a system with universal health care, he would get treated for not too much money (yes, partly out of your pocket through taxes), and his family would get TB prophylaxis and would never develop the disease. (TB prophylaxis is much cheaper than treated the disease obviously.)
3) Hypochondriacs use the system regardless of costs, but these people represent a tiny minority of the population. Indeed, whether or not the system is "free" those who abuse the medical system continue to abuse the medical system.

The bottom line is that by most world standards, the US has a less universal health care standard than average, with significant portions of the population not getting real care at all. And yes, it costs overall the most in the world per capita. Definitely something wrong here. However, completely removing government involvement would worsen the problem in several areas, for obvious reasons.

jaydee · Nov 26, 2000

<< This is the argument used by the US business world but it ignores the facts. >>

No it's common sense.

<< 1) The US system is a bad example for health insurance, because it happens to be by far the most expensive medical system in the world. It IS utterly ridiculous to have to pay that much money for your system. That is why reform is needed. >>

Well thats the country I live in so sorry for my ignorance of health care around the world.

<< 2) Because inner city Joe didn't go see the doctor about his cough, his TB went undiagnosed, and he infected the rest of his household, who now all have to be treated on the medicaid plan because they can't afford the expensive docs and hospitals. Under the current system, you ARE paying for that. Under another system with no care for the poor who can't afford it, they would die. >>

Under Harry Browne's system, it would be so cheap the poor folks could afford it, and I wouldn't have to pay for it.

<< Under a system with universal health care, he would get treated for not too much money (yes, partly out of your pocket through taxes), >>

Which I wan no part of.

<< and his family would get TB prophylaxis and would never develop the disease. (TB prophylaxis is much cheaper than treated the disease obviously.) >>

Not under Browne's system!

<< 3) Hypochondriacs use the system regardless of costs, but these people represent a tiny minority of the population. Indeed, whether or not the system is "free" those who abuse the medical system continue to abuse the medical system. >>

Under Browne's system, it would be their money, and their money alone, being wasted, taking the motive away from such people. The abuse of the system would be non-existant since they would only be hurting themselves.

<< The bottom line is that by most world standards, the US has a less universal health care standard than average, with significant portions of the population not getting real care at all. And yes, it costs overall the most in the world per capita. Definitely something wrong here. However, completely removing government involvement would worsen the problem in several areas, for obvious reasons. >>

No! It would help it for obvious reasons already stated. I can not imagine any downside what-so-ever, if the government is taken out completely, and Harry Browne's non-intervention policies were inacted. Enlighten me.

Michael · Nov 26, 2000

jaydee - Since we're going to be messing with a very basic and vital underpinnings to our society, can you provide any examples where the extreme suggestions of Browne have been tried out and proven to be effective?

Michael

jaydee · Nov 26, 2000

Why does people always assume that something new is always bad. There is a first to everything. You didn't see ancient Greece become an empire, because "democracy had not been instituted yet" Same with Roman Republic. How bout we turn this around. You show me where Harry Browne's idea's failed. That would be much more impressive then show where it worked. BTW how is it extreme? Because it is different? People are always weary of whats different. I have not a clue why.

Michael · Nov 26, 2000

jaydee - If you cannot give me examples of where it has succeeded and you claim to know much more about it than I do, how am I expected to show where it has failed? If it has never been tried (which I suspect), then you are setting me out an impossible task. There may be some countries where they are so underdeveloped and poor that there is no national healthcare system, places where it is 100% up to the individual to arrange this. I bet if such a place still exists in the world that the amount of misery and suffering from medical problems is very high in the poor areas of their society.

There was nothing in my post that said new things are by definition bad. I do not think new is good by definition.

Since Browne argues for zero government involvement, I would say that his proposal is "extreme". It would be completely different than the current system in the US and any other in use across the world as well.

I find it difficult to discuss something like healthcare with someone that freely admits ignorance of what transpires elsewhere in the world. I would think that, under the Libertarian ideology of personal responsibility, that you would have researched this before making such an important decision.

Michael

Orbius · Nov 26, 2000

There are bad parts to Socialized medicine, it tends to be inefficent, under-equipped, etc. But I personally think its a good thing that the Government pays out $$$ when its citizens are sick, of course the Government doesnt want you sick because then they have to pay out $$$ for you. Maybe they'll think twice about dumping toxic waste near you then.

The system over here I find very ugly, you basically have to be in a corporation to get good health-care. And then these health-care companies are run for profit. Think about this, the corporations have a vested interest in not treating you because this costs them money.

The patients are bad because they cost you money. Talked about a messed up philosophy.

jaydee · Nov 27, 2000

<< If you cannot give me examples of where it has succeeded and you claim to know much more about it than I do, how am I expected to show where it has failed? If it has never been tried (which I suspect), then you are setting me out an impossible task. There may be some countries where they are so underdeveloped and poor that there is no national healthcare system, places where it is 100% up to the individual to arrange this. I bet if such a place still exists in the world that the amount of misery and suffering from medical problems is very high in the poor areas of their society. >>

Since everyone wants to ignore my Harry Browne quotes, I'll put them without quotes around them, in hope that people actually resond to them.

There was a time when health insurance was accessible to almost anyone at a modest price. But after 30 years of government intervention, insurance companies have been forced to restrict their polices and charge far more than many people can afford.
Before the federal government intruded into health care in the 1960s, health care cost a fraction of today's prices, hospital stays didn't cost a year's wages, health insurance was a lot less expensive and accessible to virtually everyone on some basis, and doctors even made house calls.

Thats as close as I can come.

<< I find it difficult to discuss something like healthcare with someone that freely admits ignorance of what transpires elsewhere in the world. >>

What I meant, was I can speak for only America, as an American. I have a good idea of whats happening world-wide, but not enough to make adaquate conclusions to how they work, and the specific reasons for there success. And personally, it doesn't overwelmingly effect me whether or not Vladimir in Russia pays less for a doctors visit for the sniffles, than Jean-Claude in France, or even Pablo in Mexico for that matter. I am concerned about what would make the United States' health insurance better, which may sometimes come from other countries experiences, but I have not seen a system implemented that would beat non-government intervention.

<< I would think that, under the Libertarian ideology of personal responsibility, that you would have researched this before making such an important decision. >>

Cute.

<< The system over here I find very ugly, you basically have to be in a corporation to get good health-care. >>

And thats precisly the reason we need to stop forcing insurance companies to pay for a routine check-up. If health insurance was like the rest of insurances, you would get insurance for extroadinary circumstances and not for every little thing.

<< And then these health-care companies are run for profit. Think about this, the corporations have a vested interest in not treating you because this costs them money. >>

And they wouldn't make a very healthy (no pun intended) profit if they did something stupid and drove away all there customers, now would they? On the other hand politicians motivation, is to get re-elected. Thats why you see politicians, getting photo shots with Suzy, who's supporting health insurance to pay for her liver transplant after she chugged a quart of motor oil to win a bet.

Michael · Nov 27, 2000

jaydee - BTW - your Harry Browne quotes are fairly worthless in and of themselves. I know of no evidence nor do I know of the support he has to claim the health care cost was that much lower 30 years ago. He is just a politician like all the others.

30 years ago, health insurance was not as available as it is today and the insurance that was available was more for catastrophic cases than regular care. Saying that something is much more expensive today than it was 30 years ago is an easy statement considering inflation as a whole. I will admit that the inflation rate of health care is larger than the general inflation rate. That's why it is becoming more of a problem today.

Part of the reason why health care costs have risen is that medicine is getting to be more and more effective. Many patients are now living longer and thus hitting the age where chronic and slow killers like cancer are getting them instead of something quick like a heart attack. Look at Cheney - he already has had a quadruple bypass. That type of operation was not available 30 years ago. He may live to die a slow and expensive death from cancer.

Your point about health insurance paying for check-ups is also off base. My health insurance deductions are nothing more than a budgeting tool. By taking a small amount every pay cheque, I avoid having to pay a larger sum when I go to a doctor. A portion of my premiums go for real insurance to pay for the very expensive procedures (like my wife having a baby). Sure, I could just save up, but the risk pool allows me the luxury of having a ready source of payment should I be struck with an illness before I've saved up or two in a row after the first depletes my savings. Since I am young, and in good health (not one sick day from work in the last 7 years), I know that a good portion of my premiums are going to pay for someone else's procedures, but I knew that when I joined the risk pool.

Insurance companies also allow many people to join together to gain volume purchasing power, even on small items like checkups. I'm sure the Libertarians do not want to limit my right of commercial association.

I'm not sure I agree with your point of being/not being ignorant of what other medical systems around the world provide. If you do know what other systems are in place, why can you not point to good examples where your proposals have been tried out and tested? Non-government intervention does not appear to be used anywhere today? Why if it is such a good idea, so good that we should reject our current system and rush to the new one? What cost and quality of medical care is available in different countries is important to know because the US is in a global economy and competes with all those other countries. Since you are proposing a change from status quo, the burden of proving your case really does fall on your shoulders.

Michael

BoberFett · Nov 27, 2000

Michael

Thanks for inviting me.

Unfortunately I'm just too tired right this minute to engage in a full scale socialist/capitalist health care war right this minute. I'll mark this thread and get back to it tomorrow.

Napalm381 · Nov 27, 2000

The growth of medical technology is one of the largest reasons for increasing insurance prices. My father (25 years in the health insurance industry) stated that rates rise about 10 percent a year due to technology. People seem to have trouble with the idea that more tests and more equipment costs more money.

BoberFett · Nov 27, 2000

Napalm

Don't forget about litigation. I'd imagine that in countries with socialized medicine, 100 million dollar lawsuits are not the norm.

sandorski · Nov 27, 2000

Yup, Napalm's point shoots down that Browne guys idea by themselves. This Browne guy seems to think that medicine has remained stagnant. Doctors and medicine used to be a lot cheaper for sure, but that was when a Doctor could hold his equipment in a black bag! New fangled diagnostic machines cost millions of dollars, even simpler heart rate monitors etc cost thousands, if not more. I don't know this Browne guy from shinola, but he knows less about healthcare costs than I do, and that, is truly sad.

sandorski · Nov 27, 2000

Bober: Yes, here in Canada there is no way to sue a doctor. Before Universal Healthcare, there was, but in order to bring doctors onside they were protected from lawsuits among other things.

DABANSHEE · Nov 27, 2000

Actually there are plenty of places in the world that have health systems that JayDee describes, places like the Phillipines, where say an emergency victim from a road accident is brought in & unless they look like they are well off they just arn't treated unless they can find a relative willing to pay for splints, plaster & drugs, etc.

Also many people in the Philipines have to take out loans with pawn brokers just to buy the most basic of drugs & then half the time they turn out to be counterfeit drugs with no active ingrediants.

& guess what medical care is actually more expensive in the Philipines than Australia. We have family friends who have relatives with dual citizenship & its cheaper for them to fly back to Australia to have things like hip operations, etc. Once you take into account incomes & the relative cost of living in the Philipines, then healthcare is not just more expensive in the Philipines it probably works out to be 50 times or something more expensive relative to incomes & the cost of living.

The simple fact is Jaydee, that market forces don't work to control costs in healthcare very well. Because demand is relatively static compared with supply & thus price. This is because people don't get less sick just because healthcare providers have raised prices, & (except for that very small percentage of the population that are hypochondriacs) people don't start seeing the doctor more because prices go down (to be more accurate they do increase there rate of seeing doctors if prices fall, but the increase in consultations is very slight relative to price drops). Thus doctors are virtually free to charge whart they want & there are buggerall incentives for healthcare providers to lower prices in a market driven health system, too.

This is why in all nations with national health systems, healthcare is cheaper, relative to incomes than in nations with market driven health systems. It's also why amongst OECD nations the US being the only nation among them without a national health system has the most expensive health system in the world (both per-capita & as a percentage of GNP). The margin is very high with the US spending about 15% of it GNP on health & the rest of the OECD, less than 10%.

You used the example of the way things were in the US 30 years ago JayDee, which shows you must only talk to the elderly who look ato the past through rose coloured glasses. The simple fact is many people in the US in those days went into debt for the rest of their lives just to pay for relatively simple operations. Even Healthcare insurance was more expensive, relative to incomes than what it is today - I saw a documentary on TV about reforms in the US (mainly by Roosevelt & LBJ) & they were interveiwing someone who's grandfather could finally get his septic broken arm treated that his wife had splinted because they could not afford to see his doctor until then.

fdiskboy · Nov 27, 2000

I think that perhaps the most overlooked fact here is that the United States currently provides the BEST healthcare in the world. It may also be the most expensive, but it is the BEST.

There are also fewer waiting lists and restrictions on treatment options. We do not decide based on your age and health what treatments you are eligible for and when.

We also have laws prohibiting the denial of medical services to those who cannot afford it.

Our system may not be perfect, but it beats the heck out of Canada's system or the UK.

My one question for the socialists who complain about the poor people who can't afford treatment. I would ask this, "When was the last time you took a poor person to the hospital and paid for his treatment? When was the last time you gave a poor person some money to pay medical bills with?"

Actions speak louder than words.

jhu · Nov 27, 2000

When was the last time you took a poor person to the hospital and paid for his treatment? When was the last time you gave a poor person some money to pay medical bills with?

last week. it wasn't exactly a surgery but i did it anyway. how about you?

DABANSHEE · Nov 27, 2000

"I think that perhaps the most overlooked fact here is that the United States currently provides the BEST healthcare in the world. It may also be the most expensive, but it is the BEST.

There are also fewer waiting lists and restrictions on treatment options. We do not decide based on your age and health what treatments you are eligible for and when.

We also have laws prohibiting the denial of medical services to those who cannot afford it.

Our system may not be perfect, but it beats the heck out of Canada's system or the UK."

Ah, Fdiskboy, just because you so its so, doesnt mean it is so. Afterall you are American, which means all you know about the rest of the world is what Hollywood tells you.

The simple fact is virtually all healthcare experts agree that the US system is the worse in the OECD with 40 miilion people not covered & also being the most expensive in the world (both per capita & as a percentage of GNP) by a country mile. Really the quality of care is about the same in all western countries, the only difference is that it costs at least 40% more for that care in the US.

Wait till the babyboomers reach the age of mass retirements & hospitalisations (1945 plus 65 year equal 2010) in about about 15 years all so, the US phantum surplus will go up in smoke as healthcare costs start to sky rocket. It's the 'babyboomer healthcare timebomb' that was the initial catalyst for Hillary's health plan that the private hospitals & insurance companies spent millions killing off (it would have meant less of those budget deficit billions for them).

If the US healthcare system is the best, then why does Cuba have a reputation among academics as having the best healthcare system in the Americas. Which is shown by the fact that even though its a dirt poor 3rd world country Cubans have a life expectancy that's exactly the same as the US (actually Cuban men live one year longer than American men, see the SBS World Book)) & as far as blacks & Latinos are concerned they live much longer in Cuba.

I took advantage of of 'national health' while I was in the UK & there was absolutelty nothing wrong with it (we Aussies, New Zealanders & Europeans all have govts that have signed healthcare treaties with each other, which means when I travel through Europe I get free healthcare, just as Europeans do when travelling through Australia). There were problems though in the Thatcher days as the govt was delibratly underfunding 'National Health', because it conflicted with the conservative party's ideaology. So they were trying to destroy it by stealth as it would have been electoral suicide get rid of it.

BTW, if US healthcare is so great why do all my US relatives that have dual citizenship take advantage of Australia's national health scheme whenever they come out here (one also had a hip operation out here at the Mater Hospital).

Really national healthcare is just another thing that makes life nice & easy & its cheaper too, just the way us Aussie like it. It really makes things easy knowing I can just go to most doctors here (some opt out of the public system, but even then the govt payes the scheduled fee & one is left to pay the gap themselves) & fling them my plastic medicare card & the govt just pays the bill.

Its also makes life easy knowing that all prescription drugs on the PBS list cost a maximum of about just $15 & if you are on a pension or the dole they cost a maximum of $3 something. Yet Australia spends only about 9% of GNP on healthcare while the US spends about 14% of their GNP on healthcare.

Eug · Nov 27, 2000

<< I think that perhaps the most overlooked fact here is that the United States currently provides the BEST healthcare in the world. It may also be the most expensive, but it is the BEST. >>

That is a common fallacy among American citizens, which is NOT shared by most American health care economists. One has to consider the population as a whole. To oversimplify: The healthy rich people remain healthy, but that would be true in any country. The treatable sick rich people in the US get cured. Usually true with a good "socialized" program as well. The treatable sick poor people in the US may have a hard time getting good treatment. In a good "socialized" program, the treatable sick poor people get treated. On average, for the level of care, the US suffers greatly because of this, and that is why so many economists have a problem with the expense of the US system.

On an individual basis, if one has lots of dough (and I'm talking 10s of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of bux depending on the disease), then one has the potential of getting excellent care in the US, but even then that is not always the case. To give a single example: There are roughly 200 medical schools in the US, and 16 (I think) in Canada. I believe in a rating a few years back, basically all 16 Canadian schools were rated in the top third or at least top half of all North American medical schools. You can understand why when joke medical schools like the Oral Roberts School of Medicine were even allowed to exist in the US. (I think it's closed now.) Canadian medical graduates, from undergraduate medicine and from the various speciality programs, are in demand in the US, for this reason - the Canadians are better trained on average. (Of course crappy Canadian graduates are not uncommon though still.) Remember also that US doctors are beginning to succumb to the practice of "defensive medicine". This involves asking for a bazillion tests simply to cover your @zz. This is not necessarily good medical practice, and is damn expensive. Plus, if you do enough tests, you're bound to get an abnormal result sooner or later, whether or not it's true.

Preventive medicine is an issue as well. For example: It's is extremely difficult to create a state wide registry of patients with a specific disease, because everyone is in a different private hospital or on a different insurance plan. In places like British Columbia, with gov't $$, every woman who has ever had a Pap smear gets registered in the provincial program, and every so often her family doc is reminded that that woman needs a repeat Pap smear, if they don't get one on time. This has served to dramatically reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, except in new immigrants who are not yet in the registry. In another example, percentages of children in the US who are properly immunized are MUCH lower than say large parts of Britain, etc.

I'm not saying that Canada's system is always better. Unfortunately, we have the 2nd (or close to 2nd) most expensive system in the world, and are underfunded in certain areas while overly bureaucratic in others. But overall, from a population point of view, most would accept that the general population is as least as well cared for as the US population (or possibly better cared for), for smaller cost per capita.

It's interesting to note too... one of the problems that all countries have is not that the poor abuse the system. No in contrast, it's getting the subpops of this group to use the system, even when the system is "free". Unfortunately, when the system is not "free" these same patients will not use the system at all, until it's too late.

cxim · Nov 27, 2000

blank blank, Eug....

Medical schools & Kanuks & jobs in the US... they are in demand because they speak english, & work cheap & there is minimal difference in the training of Kanuks & US MDs

State wide registry of patients & diseases ? it is illegal.. flat out... in the US

Real simple......... live in Knook land......... get hell of low sick & need big time operation or care.... where go ? Amerika...

Want make valid comparison ? learn real facts & differences...

cxim · Nov 27, 2000

>>BTW, if US healthcare is so great why do all my US relatives that have dual citizenship take advantage of Australia's national health scheme whenever they come out here (one also had a hip operation out here at the Mater Hospital).<<

Why do road lizards get splattered every night ? are they related to you ?

BoberFett · Nov 27, 2000

What I really want to know is: If the US is such a stinkhole and places like Europe and Australia are a veritable utopia, why do people immigrate to the US? Shouldn't there be a huge exodus or people from this Hell on Earth we call the USA to some of these other paradises? And if every other country on the planet is so generous, I say why not buy one way plane tickets for every uninsured American? That would be cheap. Then let the other countries figure out how to pay for rather unproductive citizens that just leech off society.

People who steal threads suck !!! (Socialism: Is it dead yet ?)

Diamond Member

Banned

Elite member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Elite member

Diamond Member

Elite member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Elite member

Lifer

Platinum Member

Lifer

No Lifer

No Lifer

Banned

Golden Member

Lifer

Banned

Lifer

Golden Member

Golden Member

Lifer