Universal Health Care...

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Americans believe it is better to provide opportunity and let people take advantage of it rather than limit opportunity and have the government rescue the victims.The countries that have decided everyone deserves a minimum level of health care have also decided that there is a maximum level of health care, and prevents people from getting more unless they are willing to leave the country. The theory of universal care fails in practice, just like all central planning. The reality is that in socialized medicine, people in politically powerful and wealthy areas get decent care, while the poor and politically powerless get long waits and no access to care. Also, many specialties have extremely long waiting lists, so that only the rich can get rapid treatment by coming to the US.On the other hand, anyone in the US who needs treatment and seeks treatment from community and govt resources can get treatment. There are no cases of people in the US who could not afford care, have attempted to avail themselves of care through all available options, and were unable to get care.Reality matters.

We do have a minimum level of healthcare. It's called welfare. Also, EMTALA.You act like there are constant stories of people needing care and not having access to it, and you know it's an incorrect opinion.

I don't really want to get into a great big debate about which systems are better. The reality is that all systems have flaws and people need to work within their own countries to make their system work as well as possible. Countries with Universal Healthcare aren't going to change to the US system although allowing more Private Healthcare is slowly happening in Canada for example.The insurance companies in the US also set maximum levels of care. If you aren't rich you also only have access to the amount of care that your insurance company will cover. Now in many cases that level of care will be as good as there is. I look at my own situation. I have colitis, if were to attempt to get health insurance in the US anything related to my colitis would not be covered due to a pre-existing condition unless I was part of a group plan that covers those. To get that group plan though would mean tying my health care coverage to most likely my work. I would be taking a job due to the health plan and not for other reasons. In my opinion the best thing the US could do would be to remove the link between your job and your health care.I would like to hear your comments on the linked article below. It would be interesting to know why the woman in the article doesn't have health insurance. Did she decide to roll the dice or couldn't she find a health plan that would cover her pre-existing condition.http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/

Lower costs lure U.S. patients abroad for treatmentStudy: More than 6 million from U.S. will travel abroad for treatment in the next year Companies creating a niche in the service industry as medical travel plannersHospitals market upscale accommodations, Western-trained surgeons NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- "I was a walking time bomb. I knew I had to get on that plane if I wanted to be around to see my grandkids."Sandra Giustina is rolled into surgery to correct her atrial fibrillation at Max Hospital in New Dehli, India. 1 of 2 Sandra Giustina is a 61-year-old uninsured American. For three years she saved her money in hopes of affording heart surgery to correct her atrial fibrillation. "They [u.S. hospitals] told me it would be about $175,000, and there was just no way could I come up with that," Giustina said.So, with a little digging online, she found several high quality hospitals vying for her business, at a fraction of the U.S. cost. Within a month, she was on a plane from her home in Las Vegas, Nevada, to New Delhi, India. Surgeons at Max Hospital fixed her heart for "under $10,000 total, including travel."Giustina is just one of millions around the world journeying outside their native land for medical treatment, a phenomenon known as "medical tourism." Experts say the trend in global health care has just begun. Next year alone, an estimated 6 million Americans will travel abroad for surgery, according to a 2008 Deloitte study. "Medical care in countries such as India, Thailand and Singapore can cost as little as 10 percent of the cost of comparable care in the United States," the report found. Companies such as Los Angeles-based Planet Hospital are creating a niche in the service industry as medical travel planners. One guidebook says that more than 200 have sprung up in the last few years. "We find the best possible surgeons and deliver their service to patients safely, affordably and immediately," said Rudy Rupak, president of Planet Hospital. "No one should have to choose between an operation to save their life or going bankrupt." Planet Hospital, which works with international clients as well as Americans, books patients' travel and arranges phone interviews with potential surgeons. Patients are greeted by a company representative at the airport in the country where they've chosen to be treated; a 24-hour personal "patient concierge" is also provided, a level of service that's standard among many of the top medical travel planning companies. "Our patient concierge was amazing," said Giustina. "He came to the hospital every day, gave us his personal [telephone] number and after my operation, he arranged private tours of India." Just two days post-op, Giustina and her husband, Dino, toured local markets and landmarks including the Presidential Palace and the Taj Mahal."I was able to fix my heart and tour India, which is something I thought I'd never do."Walk through a patient wing at Max Hospital in New Delhi on any given day and you're likely to see people from around the world. In one visit, CNN met patients from the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Jordan, Afghanistan and the United States. They're alike in choosing surgery abroad, but their reasons differ.Many South Asians and Africans said they travel abroad because they do not have access to care in their homeland.Some Canadians and Europeans said they chose to travel aboard, despite having national health plans, because they are tired of waiting -- sometimes years -- for treatment.Patients from the Middle East said they come to India because the technology as well as the staff is more advanced.For most Americans CNN spoke to, it came down to finding the best value. "If I could have afforded my procedure in the United States, I would have taken it, but that was not my option," Giustina said. "I had to get online and look for a Plan B." The private hospitals in India market themselves as having upscale accommodations, Western-trained surgeons and state-of-the-art medical equipment.CNN spent time at Max Healthcare in New Delhi and saw operating rooms similar to those in many U.S. hospitals. If fact, Max's neurosurgery room had an inter-operative MRI scanner, which is technology hardly seen at hospitals in the United States.The lobby had marble floors, a book café, coffee station and a Subway sandwich shop. The patient suites were equipped with flat screen TVs, DVD players and Wi-Fi. This hospital also catered to families traveling together. The suites had adjoining rooms with a kitchenette, coffee maker and a sofa bed.Max neurosurgeon Dr. Ajaya Jha said the hospital can provide high-quality care at low prices because the staff work hard to cut waste. "I've seen hospitals in the U.S. where they open up something costing $10,000 and say, 'Oh it's not working. OK, give me another one.' We would never do that here. Even for 100 rupees (about $2) -- we would say, "Do we need to open this suture? Do we need to open this gauze?' We are very conscious of cost."Hospital officials negotiate hard to keep costs low for high-tech medical machinery and other supplies, Jha said. "In the U.S. people are making careers out of carrying laptops and documenting things that are not really useful in the long term for the patient."The salary of a U.S. surgeon is five times that of a surgeon in India. "We [surgeons in India] want to make a profit, but we don't want to profiteer. We don't want squeeze people and I think American industries should also think that way," Jha said.Critics of medical tourism warn patients to be diligent when researching treatment aboard. "I've found that industry voices tend to crowd out those of us who are more cautious about the legal risks," said Nathan Cortez, assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University, who is conducting a case study investigating what legal recourse patients have outside America.Patients don't think about their legal vulnerabilities, Cortez said. "Some countries limit patient access to medical records so they can't really learn what happened during the surgery. And a lot of practitioners in other countries just refuse to give you your medical records. So people have to weigh the risk versus benefit.While most tourism patients from America are uninsured, major U.S. insurance companies are considering providing "medical tourism" coverage to their customers. Several have already launched pilot programs."I think what's really important about medical tourism is that you make the choice for what's right for you and what's important to them," said a spokesman for U.S. health insurer WellPoint Inc.Experts say that every patient considering traveling abroad for surgery should inquire about postoperative care, legal rights and the safety standards and certifications of the hospital. Foreign health care providers should be willing to discuss the procedure and answer question ahead of time."What really helped me feel good about the process was that my doctor in the U.S. spoke to the cardiologist in India prior to my trip," said Giustina. "They were so open about everything; I knew I'd be in good hands."Just weeks from returning from abroad, Giustina says she has only one regret, "I shouldn't have waited so long! I feel like a new person again, no more pain."

[strappazon 0]

There are no cases of people in the US who could not afford care, have attempted to avail themselves of care through all available options, and were unable to get care.Reality matters.

That's bollocks. This kind of situation exists everywhere. I know people in France and in the US with low paid jobs who work like 8 hrs a day and earn about 800 euros. a month. When you have to paya rent and some bills with few money you can't afford anything else. Some people don't wear glasses because they can't afford it, some others can't take care of their teeth cuz they can't afford it, etc...You should read Daniel's blog when he talks about his mom and says how much some "things" cost in an US hospital compare to Canada. The fact is when you rich you can pay a doctor or an hospital, when you poor you can't. And things will become worse. You can't blame people because they don't earn like $5000 a month. If you were a poor dude who just got fired from GM you'd think different.More, even if he doesn't always tells the true you should watch the Micheal Moore's movie called "Sicko". You'll learn a lot of things about universal health care system.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I don't really want to get into a great big debate about which systems are better. The reality is that all systems have flaws and people need to work within their own countries to make their system work as well as possible. Countries with Universal Healthcare aren't going to change to the US system although allowing more Private Healthcare is slowly happening in Canada for example.The insurance companies in the US also set maximum levels of care. If you aren't rich you also only have access to the amount of care that your insurance company will cover. Now in many cases that level of care will be as good as there is. I look at my own situation. I have colitis, if were to attempt to get health insurance in the US anything related to my colitis would not be covered due to a pre-existing condition unless I was part of a group plan that covers those. To get that group plan though would mean tying my health care coverage to most likely my work. I would be taking a job due to the health plan and not for other reasons. In my opinion the best thing the US could do would be to remove the link between your job and your health care.I would like to hear your comments on the linked article below. It would be interesting to know why the woman in the article doesn't have health insurance. Did she decide to roll the dice or couldn't she find a health plan that would cover her pre-existing condition.http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/

I'll read that article and comment on it after awhile, I'm getting ready to leave the office for a bit.I only want to say that you would have coverage with your colitis on an individual plan, at least here in Colorado. Since states handle their insurance laws and regulations, what happens here may be different than how things are handled in California, etc.Here in Colorado, there is a safety net program for people with pre-ex conditions who can't get insurance elsewhere. You're right that you wouldn't qualify for individual insurance, but you'd qualify for a guaranteed issue product through our program, called Cover Colorado. So you're slightly mistaken saying you couldn't get insurance here unless you're on a group plan. I'm certain that other states have similar programs, incidentally these are paid for by those of us with insurance already. You're welcome.Regarding max levels of care, are you talking about lifetime maximums on insurance plans? In Colorado, these are usually between $2-$10 million per member, some companies like Kaiser have no maximum. I think you're reaching here.My father owns our agency and is a partner in another agency. That global insurance agency has nearly 50,000 insureds (total lives), and I can tell you that not a single person has EVER reached a lifetime max. No one. We have clients with children who hace cerebal palsy, other clients with debilitating diseases and such too. So in my opinion, your argument is slightly off. In my experience of course.

[Jeepster80125 0]

That's bollocks. This kind of situation exists everywhere. I know people in France and in the US with low paid jobs who work like 8 hrs a day and earn about 800 euros. a month. When you have to paya rent and some bills with few money you can't afford anything else. Some people don't wear glasses because they can't afford it, some others can't take care of their teeth cuz they can't afford it, etc...You should read Daniel's blog when he talks about his mom and says how much some "things" cost in an US hospital compare to Canada. The fact is when you rich you can pay a doctor or an hospital, when you poor you can't. And things will become worse. You can't blame people because they don't earn like $5000 a month. If you were a poor dude who just got fired from GM you'd think different.More, even if he doesn't always tells the true you should watch the Micheal Moore's movie called "Sicko". You'll learn a lot of things about universal health care system.

I'm sure you're probably a nice guy, but referring people to watch sicko to get facts about health care is just stupid. It's pretty obvious that you don't really have a clue about how things work here in regards to healthcare. You should do some research before you make statements like the ones you're making, because you're painfully ignorant on these types of topics.No offense.

[Dagata 0]

I don't really want to get into a great big debate about which systems are better. The reality is that all systems have flaws and people need to work within their own countries to make their system work as well as possible. Countries with Universal Healthcare aren't going to change to the US system although allowing more Private Healthcare is slowly happening in Canada for example.The insurance companies in the US also set maximum levels of care. If you aren't rich you also only have access to the amount of care that your insurance company will cover. Now in many cases that level of care will be as good as there is.

Yes, yes, and there is nothing wrong with this, the solution? Become rich, find a charity, ask your church for help. There are ways if people are willing to put forth the effort, the extremely few situations where these things are not possible is not sufficient enough to set policy that hinders the entire system, it sounds mean but you have to accept that some people are going to get screwed, but it happens.

[hblask 1]

If you aren't rich you also only have access to the amount of care that your insurance company will cover.

This is why I prefer a country where getting rich is accessible to all, not just those with political connections. And no, I'm not talking about Canada, I'm talking about the problems we have here with crony capitalism and protectionist licensing laws that makes it nearly impossible for the little guy to gain ground. If we would open the doors to success the way we should, then I would have less problem with just letting people live with their choices. As it is, the government stands in the way of success in so many ways, it only seems fair to help those it has hurt. So if I were made dictator for a couple years, first I'd remove the barriers to success before I worried about fixing the healthcare-for-the-poor problem. At some point, though, we need to let people know that the choices they make in their life make a difference later on.

It would be interesting to know why the woman in the article doesn't have health insurance. Did she decide to roll the dice or couldn't she find a health plan that would cover her pre-existing condition.http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.trave

I think this is a great trend. The biggest reason for the cost explosion in the US is the lack of competition. About half of our health dollars are spent by the federal government, and their one-size-fits-all mentality pretty much guarantees price and supply distortions. If US hospitals start having to compete with cheaper hospitals in other countries, maybe the political pressure will build to remove the impediments to competition. I think that article mentioned that some insurance companies are paying for these trips, travel costs included. That's exactly what we need.My fear, of course, is politicians will catch on and attempt to make medical tourism illegal. This seems much more likely, because medical tourism means bureaucrats can't micromanage the issue.And BTW, I deleted this part of your comment, but I agree that the number one thing the US should do is remove the link between job and insurance. It's a major reason for our escalating prices. Instead, it should be the opposite way: privately purchased care is deductible, employer-provided care is not. This would dramatically change medicine for the better within 2 years. People could switch jobs when it made economic sense rather than insurance sense and pre-existing conditions would be less of an issue; people would be more willing to be solo entrepreneurs, which is where much economic growth comes from; and poor people would have cost-conscious individuals bargaining prices down for them instead of rich corporations competing for cadillac plans to lure employees.The issue of pre-existing conditions is the most vexing problem of all. First, we have to think of it from the insurance company's point of view. Would a company create a pre-existing condition product for car insurance? Of course not, and it would be silly to expect them to do it for medical insurance. So what can we do? Again, at some point we have to let people know that their decisions matter. If you choose to wait to get insurance until you are severely sick, yes, you will have trouble finding coverage and will pay more. I'm generally opposed to intervention in free markets, but here's an area where I can see a reasonable set of rules. For example, insurance companies could be required to continue to insure people at similar rates even if the person gets a chronic condition. In other words, you can't jack up the price when someone gets sick, as that defeats the purpose of insurance and basically amounts to fraud. Rate increases would have to be similar to those of the people with similar insurance who did NOT get sick.Another idea I saw floated, which is intriguing but needs to be fleshed out is "chronic illness insurance", as a rider to your regular policy, where you basically buy insurance against the possibility that you will develop an extremely expensive chronic condition. This is just a market-based, explicit version of the legal-based solution from the previous paragraph though, I think. It's something I saw mentioned but not really expanded or defended. It's an idea I hope to see more about in the future.

[hblask 1]

That's bollocks. This kind of situation exists everywhere. I know people in France and in the US with low paid jobs who work like 8 hrs a day and earn about 800 euros. a month. When you have to paya rent and some bills with few money you can't afford anything else. Some people don't wear glasses because they can't afford it, some others can't take care of their teeth cuz they can't afford it, etc...You should read Daniel's blog when he talks about his mom and says how much some "things" cost in an US hospital compare to Canada. The fact is when you rich you can pay a doctor or an hospital, when you poor you can't. And things will become worse. You can't blame people because they don't earn like $5000 a month. If you were a poor dude who just got fired from GM you'd think different.More, even if he doesn't always tells the true you should watch the Micheal Moore's movie called "Sicko". You'll learn a lot of things about universal health care system.

I don't think you understood what I said. I said people WHO NEEDED CARE and USED ALL AVAILABLE COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT RESOURCES are absolutely able to find care in the US. Not that it's more expensive than some people can afford on their normal budget, just that there is plenty of help available. I had two children who spent their first 4 months in the hospital, and people were coming out of the woodwork asking us if we needed financial help, from both state agencies and private charities. The lies of people unable to get healthcare in the US is a myth created by the people who want something-for-nothing.And BTW, using Michael Moore for factual information is like using Paris Hilton for information on particle physics.(On second thought, that's probably an insult to Paris Hilton, I'm sure she knows more about physic than Moore does about economics and health care.)

[Jeepster80125 0]

I agree with Henry that this is a good trend and we'll start to see more carriers cover this type of care. While most of the socialized medicine crowd would deny this, insurance companies are also looking to lower costs too. This sounds like a viable option in some cases. I know some of our clients are seeking dental care in Mexico since most dental plans have max yearly benefits of several thousand dollars, which doesn't begin to cover serious issues or restorations. The only thing I can see issues with would be malpractice. What if a US carrier, say Anthem BCBS, sends a patient to India for a heart transplant and the docs there screw something up. I would imagine the US carrier would have some sort of liability. I can't imagine those Indian hospitals would cover malpractice or anything, but I don't know so I won't speculate.We need to remember that healthcare is expensive, that's why health insurance is expensive. It's not a problem that will go away with socialized medicine or a single payer system.

[hblask 1]

Wow, I sure hope we can get this for all Americans, instead of just seniors. Central planning at its finest! That would be a GREAT system:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business...&ref=healthEARLY this year, Barbara Plumb, a freelance editor and writer in New York who is on Medicare, received a disturbing letter. Her gynecologist informed her that she was opting out of Medicare. When Ms. Plumb asked her primary-care doctor to recommend another gynecologist who took Medicare, the doctor responded that she didn’t know any — and that if Ms. Plumb found one she liked, could she call and tell her the name?Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors — often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists — are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.When shopping for a doctor, ask if he or she is enrolled with Medicare. If the answer is no, that doctor has opted out of the system. Those who are enrolled fall into two categories, participating and nonparticipating. The latter receive a lower reimbursement from Medicare, and the patient has to pick up more of the bill.Doctors who have opted out of Medicare can charge whatever they want, but they cannot bill Medicare for reimbursement, nor may their patients. Medigap, or supplemental insurance, policies usually do not provide coverage when Medicare doesn’t, so the entire bill is the patient’s responsibility.The solution to this problem is to find doctors who accept Medicare insurance — and to do it well before reaching age 65. But that is not always easy, especially if you are looking for an internist, a primary care doctor who deals with adults. Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare, according to the hospital’s Web site.Two trends are converging: there is a shortage of internists nationally — the American College of Physicians, the organization for internists, estimates that by 2025 there will be 35,000 to 45,000 fewer than the population needs — and internists are increasingly unwilling to accept new Medicare patients.In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed had a problem finding a primary care doctor or specialist to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. Those looking for a primary care doctor had more difficulty. A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state’s doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did. [article continued at link]

[Jeepster80125 0]

So the solution is to not get old, right?

[strappazon 0]

And BTW, using Michael Moore for factual information is like using Paris Hilton for information on particle physics.(On second thought, that's probably an insult to Paris Hilton, I'm sure she knows more about physic than Moore does about economics and health care.)

LOL.

[hblask 1]

Canada makes a step in the right direction, as the US continues to flounder:http://reason.com/news/show/132890.htmlI usually would post the whole article, but it's long, so just clicky-clicky.This is a step closer to my ideal drug regulation plan, and should help reduce pharmaceutical costs in Canada even further.Ideally, the government would not prevent *any* agreement between doctor, patient, and drug manufacturer. At most, the government's role should be to facilitate information flow between the three of those. Instead of the FDA (here in the US) being a regulatory agency, it should be a rating agency. Each drug would be rated on three things: effectiveness, volume of studies (confidence), and danger. So doctors and patients would know if a drug is a long-shot with high potential for side-effects or a safe, well-tested drug that probably won't help much or a drug that appears to work miracles but will definitely have bad side effects. The information could be published online in plain English, and doctor's offices could print out the latest knowledge base on each drug. Then the FDA (or whoever) should get out of the way. If I'm dying of a rare disease, the last thing I want to hear is that some bureaucrat that is trying to cover his ass says I can't have this new treatment because they don't think it's safe enough for me.

[Jeepster80125 0]

The Misguided Quest for Universal CoverageAMERICA’S dysfunctional health care financing system needs to be reformed. But the goal should not be universal coverage. Reform should simply aim to make health insurance more affordable and portable.Universal coverage has so dominated the health care discussion that even some Republicans have tried to devise market-friendly ways to achieve it. The case for doing so is presented in practical, moral and political terms.The practical case is that uninsured people raise premiums for everyone else. But such cost shifting raises premiums by 1.7 percent at most, according to a 2008 study published in the journal Health Affairs. Reforms that increase the number of people with health insurance, while stopping short of universal coverage, would presumably make that small percentage even smaller.Efforts to eliminate this relatively tiny expense, on the other hand, would surely generate new costs. To mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, as many have suggested, would require that the government specify what constitutes adequate coverage — in other words, what health conditions an insurance policy would need to cover. Every provider group with a lobbyist, from massage therapists to fertility specialists, would want in. The result would be expensive insurance policies and costly government subsidies to help people buy them. Young and healthy people, especially, would be forced to overpay. So we would end up with more cost-shifting, and no savings.This is another way of saying that universal coverage cannot be achieved using free-market methods — a point that many liberals correctly make. A bipartisan bill in the Senate introduced by Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, purports to use the market to provide universal coverage. It would keep insurance companies in business, but only by converting them into regulated and subsidized public utilities, eliminating most existing insurance plans and expanding the I.R.S. by a quarter. It owes more to Rube Goldberg than Milton Friedman.The moral case for universal coverage is that we have an obligation to see to it that the poor and the near-poor have access to good health care. But universal coverage is only one way of realizing that goal, and not necessarily the best one. For people with pre-existing health problems, for example, direct subsidies would probably be more efficient than rigging insurance markets to make sure they are covered. As Michael Cannon, a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute, has written, “There is no evidence that a dollar spent on universal coverage will save more lives than a dollar spent on clinics, or reducing medical errors, or nutrition, or fighting poverty, or even improving education.” And if universal coverage generally reduces the quality of care or retards medical innovation, it could end up being bad for everyone, including the poor.The political case for universal coverage is based on the assumption that voters want it. But people’s preference for universal coverage is not as great as their desire to reduce health care costs, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found in late 2007. So it’s not clear that people would accept higher taxes, mandates or the prospect of rationing health care one day just to make sure that every individual is covered. During the Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton repeatedly attacked Barack Obama’s health care plan for not covering everyone — and as you may have noticed, he survived. If Democratic primary voters are not wedded to universality, the larger public surely is not.An alternative approach would be to make it easier for people to buy insurance that isn’t tied to their employment. The existing tax break for employer-provided insurance could be replaced with a tax credit that applies to insurance purchased either inside or outside the workplace. At the same time, state mandates that require insurers to cover certain conditions, which make it expensive to offer individual policies, could be removed.These two reforms would address most people’s anxieties about the health care system. Insurance would be more affordable, especially for people who cannot get it through an employer, so the number of people with insurance would rise. Indeed, this would enable more than 20 million more Americans to get insurance, according to a model created by Steve Parente, a health economist at the University of Minnesota.More important, people would own their insurance policies and thus be able to take them from job to job. They would no longer need to worry about losing their job and their insurance at the same time, or feel they need to stay with a job they dislike because they need the benefits.Critics of this free-market solution have argued that it would cause the current employer-based health insurance system to unravel. But that system is already unraveling, and if public health plans are created, as called for under President Obama’s proposal, they would unravel further as employers dumped their workers onto the public plans. A second argument is that people with pre-existing conditions would find it hard to get coverage. In fact, in the long run, the option to buy renewable policies that people could take from job to job would keep most people from needing to face this problem. Direct government subsidies could help the remainder.The third complaint against free-market health insurance is that it wouldn’t cover absolutely everyone, because it would neither force people to buy insurance nor require the government to provide it. Pharmaceutical companies and other provider groups would make a bit less money than they would if there were universal coverage — although they would probably be better off than they are now.For most people, though, especially those in the middle class, it would mean paying less for health insurance. Some people, of course, would still choose to go without it. But that would be their call, as it should be in a free country.

[hblask 1]

An honest Democrat admits that they want socialized medicine. NOW can we stop pretending it's not Soviet-style central planning?http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html

[Jeepster80125 0]

A word from Dilbert creator Scott Adams:BLOCKQUOTE TIME!!

I was reading a debate on healthcare in the recent Newsweek. The prominent Democrat supported some sort of national healthcare while the prominent Republican supported more of a free market approach. Most people will probably take sides based on their assumptions about government efficiency versus market efficiency.An old joke that works as its own punch line goes "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Most people in this country reflexively believe the government will screw up anything it touches. There's plenty of evidence for that view.But I wonder if government can be more efficient than the free market in specific situations, specifically in situations where the service is more about software than headcount, and where nothing needs to be invented.Imagine a situation where you are deciding if a particular service should be handled by the government or by a hypothetical free market dominated by three players. The government's incentive is to provide the service as cheaply as it can. Any company's incentive is to transfer the greatest amount of money from consumers to stockholders. And to do that in a competitive industry you usually end up with what I call confusopolies. A confusopoly is a situation in which companies pretend to compete on price, service, and features but in fact they are just trying to confuse customers so no one can do comparison shopping.Cell phone companies are the best example of confusopolies. The average consumer finds it impossible to decipher which carrier has the best deal, so carriers don't have normal market pressure to lower prices. It's a virtual cartel without the illegal part.The advantage of a free market system is innovation. The market has an incentive to try new things. Governments prefer to avoid risks. If you need innovation, you want the free market.In the case of national healthcare insurance, I ask myself these questions: 1. Is it more about software than headcount? 2. How important is innovation? 3. Is the free market for this service a natural confusopoly?Before you call me a socialist, I don't have an informed opinion on national healthcare. But I also don't have an automatic bias in favor of a free market that gave us Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, derivatives, and mortgages to hobos. I think you have to look at the specifics.

[hblask 1]

A word from Dilbert creator Scott Adams:BLOCKQUOTE TIME!!

Scott Adams has a great comic strip, but from what I've seen he's pretty naive about institutional behavior and public choice. It's sort of a surprise, but here again he shows that's he's not exactly with it.For example, using Enron and Madoff as symbols of the free market, and saying government incentive is to provide things cheaply. These are both ridiculously silly statements.Look at the number of corporations and the number of free market transactions that occur each day. Then count the number of flaming failures. It's miniscule. Enron and Madoff are news because they are rare exceptions. A dozen out of millions? How does that compare to the government's corruption track record?Also, the "giving mortgages to hobos" thing is a nice punch line, but also bad analysis. This didn't happen before the government told banks "if you give money to hobos and they skip town, we'll pay you back."The notion that the government wants to do things cheap is, sadly, an unintended punchline. The incentive in government is 1) political cover, and 2) pay back campaign contributions. Any concern for efficiency or cost takes a back seat to those.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Scott Adams has a great comic strip, but from what I've seen he's pretty naive about institutional behavior and public choice. It's sort of a surprise, but here again he shows that's he's not exactly with it.For example, using Enron and Madoff as symbols of the free market, and saying government incentive is to provide things cheaply. These are both ridiculously silly statements.Look at the number of corporations and the number of free market transactions that occur each day. Then count the number of flaming failures. It's miniscule. Enron and Madoff are news because they are rare exceptions. A dozen out of millions? How does that compare to the government's corruption track record?Also, the "giving mortgages to hobos" thing is a nice punch line, but also bad analysis. This didn't happen before the government told banks "if you give money to hobos and they skip town, we'll pay you back."The notion that the government wants to do things cheap is, sadly, an unintended punchline. The incentive in government is 1) political cover, and 2) pay back campaign contributions. Any concern for efficiency or cost takes a back seat to those.

I agree with you, but I enjoy his attempts as a layman attempting to understand how things work. He's got a good sense of humor no homo.

[hblask 1]

And so it begins....Not content to destroy the automotive and banking sectors, Obama has now set his sites on the healthcare sector. (link below)This is supposedly a breakthrough because he got buy-in from the private sector.Gee, what does that mean.... oh wait, it wouldn't have anything to do with guaranteed profits for some Democratic campaign contributors, would it? Let's watch and see who benefits and how much they gave to the Obama campaign.At any rate, it's pure fantasy. They are going to cut trillions in 'administrative efficiency'. What a joke. As if 20% of the cost of health care is administration that is NOT the result of federal requirements. Instead, they just want to stack more requirements on the already overburdened doctors.The reality is they want forced rationing. Instead of rationing based on what you can afford and what you and your doctor think is sensible, they are moving toward a plan that is based on only allowing care that distant bureaucrats think is appropriate.

changing incentives so providers are rewarded for providing "better" care, as opposed to "more" care. Hospitals are now "financially penalized for providing more efficient care by current law," the official said.

Yes, that's federal rationing. They won't sell it as that, but they will start to penalize doctors who treat people in a way different than some committee things is appropriate.This is such bad news, I hope somebody can stand up to this nonsense. It's so obvious where it's going.--------------------------------------http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/10/news/econo...eform/index.htmNEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama will announce Monday that he has secured the commitment of several industry groups to do their part to rein in the growth in health care costs.This pledge from the private sector could reduce the growth in health care spending by 1.5 percentage points a year, for a savings of $2 trillion over 10 years, a letter from the groups will promise, according to a senior administration official. Overall, it could amount to a 20% reduction in the growth of health care spending.Six trade associations representing unions, hospitals, insurers and the drug industry have signed on to the commitment.However, the savings depend in part on Congress passing health care reform this year. And it was not clear how these savings would be accomplished. An official pointed to possible savings from "administrative simplification," smarter care coordination, and changing incentives so providers are rewarded for providing "better" care, as opposed to "more" care. Hospitals are now "financially penalized for providing more efficient care by current law," the official said. The official also said savings could come from the bundling of payments, in which hospitals, doctors, insurers and other health care companies would work together to bill one fee for one treatment. The Obama administration is positioning health care reform as critical for getting the deficit under control; for freeing up resources for other initiatives, such as education; and for reducing the burden on American families. Under the plan to be announced Monday, in five years, the average family of four could be saving $2,500 in health care costs annually, the official said. Given the failed health care reform efforts of the 1990s, the White House's Monday press conference aims to get ahead of potential detractors."It is a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health care reform in the '90s, desperately need health care reform in 2009. And so does America," Obama is expected to say Monday, according to excerpts of prepared remarks.One official described the participation of the private sector as a "game changer" in the discussion of health care reform. "It makes it even clearer that it's going to happen this year in Congress."A spokesman for AARP responded to news of Monday's planned announcement by saying, "AARP believes the agreement of providers to slow the skyrocketing cost of health care is critical for the health reform we are all working toward. "Reducing the skyrocketing cost of health care is the only way to create a health care system that works for all Americans; after all, what good is access to a system that we can't afford?" said the spokesman, AARP Director of Public Policy John Rother.

[Nimue1995 1]

I think I'll adopt a "wait and see" attitude on this one H. I'm not of the opinion that everything about health care reform is horrible.

[antistuff 0]

Here's a story which shows why central planning is such a disaster for health care in this country. What is the point of the FDA again? The FDA explicitly forbid a company from putting a warning on their package, but they can be sued for not having the warning. How in the f does that make sense? How much does this type of nonsense add to the cost of medicine in this country?--------------------------------------------------------------------http://reason.com/news/show/132307.htmlThe Supreme Court handed down its decision this month in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, ruling that federal law did not bar plaintiff Diana Levine from suing pharmaceutical maker Wyeth over allegedly insufficient drug safety warnings, even though the warnings had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This decision establishes the troubling precedent that a sympathetic jury can now supersede the expert opinions of the FDA on what qualifies as adequate safety labeling. Ultimately, that means drug firms face higher costs and greater uncertainty. Both are bad for patients.Levine lost an arm to gangrene after a physician's assistant injected the Wyeth drug Phenergan in such a way that it came into contact with oxygen-rich arterial blood. Although the drug's label explicitly warned that doing so poses a high risk of tissue damage, Levine claimed that the label should have instructed physicians not to use this intravenous "IV-push" method at all. A Vermont jury agreed, and awarded Levine $7.4 million, which the court reduced to $6.7 million.On appeal, Wyeth could not challenge the jury's fact finding, but argued that the FDA's extensive regulation of drug labeling should preclude claims of negligent failure to warn. The Supreme Court held, by a 6-3 majority, that federal law does not preempt Levine's claim.According to Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion, "The history of the [Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act] shows that Congress did not intend to preempt state-law failure-to-warn actions." Although true in a general sense, the Court failed to recognize that this is not a typical failure-to-warn case. As Justice Samuel Alito's dissenting opinion notes, Levine conceded that, in 1988, Wyeth proposed a label change that "if followed, would have prevented the inadvertent administration of Phenergan into an artery," but the FDA rejected that language. [story continued at link]

suing the drug company seems ridiculous to me here. the doctor who did it, i can see that. from the article it even looks like the FDA didn't really do their job here and could be responsible. but unless that article is very slanted it seems that the drug company did their job and even tried to get the wording changed because the knew it was dangerous to administer that way. nothing that they did seems like it contributed to what happened to that woman. the legal system can be a strange, stupid, and counterintuitive beast sometimes.

[hblask 1]

I think I'll adopt a "wait and see" attitude on this one H. I'm not of the opinion that everything about health care reform is horrible.

Yeah, that's what we've been saying about all of Obama's plans, and every one so far has turned out to be far worse than he promised and even worse than we feared.There are not a lot of things that are 100% sure in life, but one of them is when industry lobbyists start giving "concessions", it's time to hide your wallet.

[Nimue1995 1]

Yeah, that's what we've been saying about all of Obama's plans, and every one so far has turned out to be far worse than he promised and even worse than we feared.There are not a lot of things that are 100% sure in life, but one of them is when industry lobbyists start giving "concessions", it's time to hide your wallet.

It's my contention H, that we really won't know the effect of President Obama's policies until later in his Presidency or even like Reagan and Roosevelt years and decades later. When you're in the midst of the event it's pretty hard to get a reasonable perspective. I've heard the "sky is falling" rhetoric from both sides for decades now and so far it's not happened. It might happen eventually but I've been around long enough to know that there is usually a pretty long pause between economic cause and effect.Larry Burkett was predicting the fall of the United States via inflation clear back in the 70's and 80's. He's passed on now and hasn't happened yet. Didn't happen when he predicted it would. So with that track record, please understand why I'm a little more willing to wait and see before joining your campaign.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

http://reason.com/news/show/133344.html

[Nimue1995 1]

In the spirit of balancing viewpoints :

[hblask 1]

In the spirit of balancing viewpoints :

I think it's excellent that you posted that in this thread, so that people can go back at look at the intellect level of the arguments against socialized medicine vs the arguments for socialized medicine.Against: mountains of data, worldwide comparisons, scholarly journals, reasoned argumentsFor: you're going to die unless you do what Obama says.Yep, that pretty much sums it up.