# Conservative opinion on US health care **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356 "2009-07-26T21:42:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/81 "2009-08-03T21:19:08Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Because you found a loophole which allowed you to get out of covering me. See _Recission_, above. > > Or I’ve already got an expensive-to-treat disease. Why would you be willing to allow me to buy coverage, knowing that you’re never going to make money off of me? Presumably, you could just charge me an exorbitant premium- but what if I can’t afford that premium? Insurance is not a method of you laying off your medical costs on others. Insurance is a form of societal savings. We all chip in money based on our expected cost of health care and invoking the law of large numbers, to the extent I need more health care than was expected others will need less health care than was expected and it will average out. Insurance is not a way for you to get $100 worth of health care for $1 (or whatever ratio you need to bea able to afford your own health care). If insurance companies gouge you for your health care, that is one thing, but if they charge you the present value of your expected health care costs over the insured period and you can’t afford it then you just can’t afford your own health care and your poor health has condemned you to poverty and we all chip in (in the form of taxes) to subsidize your health care. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/82 "2009-08-03T21:28:53Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Hmm, I just stumbled across a blog post relevant to the talk about eeeevil insurance companies:I would argue that to make the insurance market more accountable, we need to delink employment from insurance, to improve competition for customers. Nevertheless this model does suggest that even a moderate level of consumer choice will lead to accountability for insurers - certainly more than a government insurance monopoly would have. The reason why life insurance companies do not renege is because they CANNOT renege. Read your life insurance contract, once the contest period is over (usually two years) the insurance company has to pay off no matter what. You can literally commit suicide and your life insurance company has to pay off if you have held your contract for two years. Large reputable casualty companies also try to get off the hook if the amount is large enough and when it comes to medical you have one policyholder for every thousand that represents more in claims than the other 999. So if you screw one in 1000 policyholders and can reap hugomgous profits while also providing very cheap insurance, how would the market discourage that? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/83 "2009-08-03T21:32:57Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’m **a** There is no societal triage. There should be if the society is paying for it. agreed The rest of your post seems like conservative posturing. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/84 "2009-08-03T21:36:16Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > WTF > > That’s about $212 per week, which is about $100 more per week than I am currently paying through my employer’s group health plan. And how much does your employer chip in? > [@](#): > > again, WTF… > > WTF, WTF, WTF… > > Is anyone paying attention to any of this? What is the advantage? Middle class America get’s bent over the barrel yet again.. > > Sorry, but this has disaster written all over it… You do realize taht noone is going to FORCE you to give up your current plan for the government plan right? The government plan is the insurer of last resort and is likely to insure a bunch of very high cost individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/85 "2009-08-03T21:36:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If insurance companies gouge you for your health care, that is one thing, but if they charge you the present value of your expected health care costs over the insured period and you can’t afford it then you just can’t afford your own health care and your poor health has condemned you to poverty and we all chip in (in the form of taxes) to subsidize your health care. Is there any proposal (this is an honest question, I have not read all the proposals floating around in Congress) that actually does not start subsidizing insurance for all and sundry, to be paid for by tax increases on the wealthy. Because even if person A (AGI of $150,000) and person B (AGI of $15,000) both have $10,000 added to their taxable incomes as the imputed income from their employer health insurance plan, A is going to pay $3,500 in incremental taxes and B is going to pay nothing (or $765 if this is subject to FICA/Medicare). My preference is for a simple single payer system (Canada style) but I haven’t figured out how to get there from here, without massive dislocation in the insuance industry in the short run. In the long run single payer is going to have to lower costs (or at least stop the increase) by reducing physician, other provider and pharmaceutical company incomes. And this will to some extent reduce the intellectual quality of people going into medicine, and reduce investment in new drugs and devices. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. That is the price you have to pay for getting more equity, more security, more competitiveness and cost control. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/86 "2009-08-03T21:42:10Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > We’re so lucky that the Apollo project, Interstate Highway System, and TVA just magically appeared with no government involvement. And just think where we’d be if those wonderful wonderful corporations hadn’t set up Social Security and Medicare out of the goodness of their hearts. And isn’t it nice that we can eat food and take medications that have been inspected and tested without any government involvement? Gosh, this libertarian paradise is just so wonderful! I detect sarcasm. You don’t seem to understand that in a Libertarian run world, homo economicus is imbued with perfect information and operates on a level playing field. In other words we all start out with the same resources and earn whatever income we want to earn based on our labor/leisure payoff model and we spend our equitably distributed resources based on what we value and based on all the knowledge available to mankind (and all knowledge IS available to mankind). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/87 "2009-08-03T21:47:13Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > You have made a mistake - saying “there will be proportionally more beneficiaries than workers” is not the same as saying “there will be more beneficiaries than workers”. I was saying that the ratio of beneficiaries to workers will increase, not that the ratio will be greater than 100%. OK then after the baby boomers die there will be proportionally more workers than benficiaries. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/88 "2009-08-03T21:51:57Z")
> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > Is there any proposal (this is an honest question, I have not read all the proposals floating around in Congress) that actually does not start subsidizing insurance for all and sundry, to be paid for by tax increases on the wealthy. It is hard to insure poor people without subsidizing them. It still has to be paid for so that burden falls on the most fortunate of our society. > [@](#): > > In the long run single payer is going to have to lower costs (or at least stop the increase) by reducing physician, other provider and pharmaceutical company incomes. And this will to some extent reduce the intellectual quality of people going into medicine, and reduce investment in new drugs and devices. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. That is the price you have to pay for getting more equity, more security, more competitiveness and cost control. Considering the fact that you spend more than half your lifetime health care dollars in your last few months of life, wouldn’t it make more sense to control those costs rather than pay doctors minimum wage? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356/89 "2009-08-04T01:05:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It is hard to insure poor people without subsidizing them. It still has to be paid for so that burden falls on the most fortunate of our society.? Fair enough as far as I am concerned. I think there was a thread by a candoper (Sam Stone?) who showed that in Canada the tax burden was LESS progressive than in the US. In fact in most countries with UHC plans the UHC is funded by taxes/contributions/premiums the burdens of which fall much more broadly than the income tax. Kind of like an extreme form of the FICA tax. Except for the lowest income folks, every one effectively pays $x per month towards health insurance/health care. This means that there is maximum pressure politically to keep costs down, and it keeps the lid on the power of the providers to increase costs. Because when you go after 50% of the population who makes $20-50,000 euros with an additional cost of 100 euros you get a nice backlash. But if you go after 10% of the population for an extra 500 euros each, the other 90% just asks, why not 1000 euros so everyone can have private beds? > [@](#): > > Considering the fact that you spend more than half your lifetime health care dollars in your last few months of life, wouldn’t it make more sense to control those costs rather than pay doctors minimum wage? Short of killing off the people who want to fight their life threatening diseases, how do you do this? If 50% of the spending comes in the last few months, 50% of the income stream for providers comes from it too. The patient wants it, the doctor wants to provide it, so you have two choices: forbid the care, or refuse to pay for it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-opinion-on-us-health-care/504356.md?page=4)