Oh, I get it! Karl Marx was the founder of communist principles, so my support of Universal Health Care must therefore be communistic. Brilliant! I’m a pinko commie so my thoughts have no value!
Efficient government run health insurance does not automatically equal communism, comrade.
btw - you just signed up today and most of your posts are harping on in another thread about Obama’s 48% support level. Interesting.
So you realize, of course, that UHC is implemented in all industrialized countries, except the United States?
Funny how all these Marxist countries can operate so successfully, isn’t it? What, with many of them having standards of living higher than in the US, and lots of them having life expectancies longer than those in the US, isn’t it? Damn commies. 
Y’know, I posted a thread to ask this very question. I got some responses (Sam Stone was the most active, IIRC), but I’m still not entirely sure why the countries with UHC are less free, or worse off, than we are. Perhaps I should’ve asked more about the “worse off” part.
Still, I get the feeling that conservatives would believe that the lower standards of living and all that are the price we pay for not being dependent on the government teat for survival, with the attendant danger of said government using it as a bargaining chip to get anything they want. (Though admittedly, many conservatives also don’t think the level of care is all that different from said countries, or is better, anyway, so maybe not.)
If I wanted to participate in a thread discussing fire and police expenses, I would have found one or started one.
I am perfectly willing to imagine exceptions to the general principle. And these exceptions you mention seem reasonable. But the key element here is to remember that the general principle is every person is responsible for his own health care, even if we admit to exceptions for specific circumstances.
The starting point for the health care reform effort, on the other hand, seems to be that we should recognize that everyone has a right to basic health care, even if they can’t afford it.
I’d say it’s a debatable point. The other debatable point is, how many of these countries which have this supposed higher standard of living AND UHC, also have significant militaries? Or, to put it another way, many countries with UHC get a freebie because the US is footing a large percentage of the bill when it comes to military power for the west. Oh, I realize that most of the liberals on this board don’t really see that as any kind of worthwhile trade off, and I’m certain that most Europeans don’t appreciate it either (especially since they are the primary beneficiaries, ehe?), but it IS a significant factor. Cut our military budget to the same size, percentage of GDP wise, as most of the countries with UHC, and yeah…we could afford it too. For a while, and until the bill really starts to mount. Eventually, IMHO, I think even the US would find the costs too much, even leaving aside what the abandonment of our powerful military would effect in the real world.
But then, I expect that as the costs mount, some countries that currently have UHC might find it more and more difficult to continue to support. Oh, I could be wrong…I’m in ‘wait and see’ mode, atm, and have been for several years. I do know that if the US DID decide to cut our military to the bone and leave it to the Euro’s and our other allies to pick up their share of the load that it wouldn’t be nearly as easy for them to continue on with a business as usual when it comes to UHC…or a lot of their other social programs.
-XT
Demand is perhaps a loaded word, but the word entitlement has been used for a long time, and isn’t what i would consider to be a loaded word.
Now here is something that is debatable. The government theoretically should be able to beat any insurance company’s premiums simply by virtue of being as big as it is, with 300 million people to pull from. Is that in our best interest, though? You hear about people being denied this and denied that… will that change in any significant way under a government plan? You hear that the insurance companies make huge profits, and in absolute dollars it is a large sum of money. but what’s their profit margin? According to this article, not so much:
And really, the people who work for insurance companies are US citizens as well. Does it make sense to kill companies that perform so, well, poorly, yet do so much, simultaneously putting those people out of work? Government insurance will kill insurance companies as we know them, and while some think that is a good thing, I’m not so sure.
There is some reform that can be done, absolutely there is. But reform isn’t going to cause people to be able to demand the latest and greatest hyper-expensive procedures that are typically denied to them. People are still going to be denied expensive medicines simply because we can’t pay for all of it, no matter how much we might want to. Follow the money. Where does it go? It goes to doctors who are paying crushing sums for malpractice insurance, among other things. It’s going to a medical system that is already overtaxed and losing practitioners in droves. And we propose to add people to this system?
We can, of course, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on lower costs, and I wouldn’t expect improvement in services. Quite the contrary, I would expect fewer services at a higher price. It’s simple economics. Obama says he can do it, and I will take him at his word because he’s given it more thought than I have, evidently. But I can’t help seeing what I am seeing.
It’s really not that simple, although there is a bit of that to it. I’d love to see everybody covered, but my family comes first. I’m sorry it has to be that way, but it is. If my family suffers because of yours, you can’t seriously expect me to be pragmatic about it, do you? I wouldn’t expect you to be.
We can give it a try, but there are two things to consider: 1) Once an entitlement is given, it is all but impossible to withdraw, so we’ll be stuck with it come hell or high water, and 2) If it doesn’t work at expected cost levels, we are going to have to feed the beast, and that is a risk with serious implications, one that we should not just jump into out of some sense of community or whatever.
It’s my understanding that neither “profits” nor “profit margins” are really appropriate measures for insurance companies (I use quotation marks because I’m mostly economics ignorant and leave the definitions to those more knowledgable than I).
I found the response comments to a blog post discussing insurers’ profitability from Marginal Revolution to be on point, but mostly over my head (disclaimer: I have no idea what the leanings and/or reputation of that blog are). However, one poster says:
Which seems to be a general conclusion of that discussion. They seem to feel that return on equity (ROE) is a more suitable measure. More information on rating insurance companies (including an explanation of ROE) is at Investopedia. It’s mostly gobbledy gook to me, but I recognize it is a major point of contention that undercuts a pillar of your argument.
And perhaps I’ll learn something in the ensuing discussion by bringing it up here.
This is something of a hijack, but I find this stance interesting. On one hand, it’s very reasonable for you to feel obligated to your dependents and that is understandable and honorable. On the other hand, I’m curious - if you were single, would your positional stances change, or with no family unit involved, would you say “I’d love to see everybody covered, but I come first. I’m sorry it has to be that way, but it is. If I suffer because of you, you can’t seriously expect me to be pragmatic about it, do you?”
It sounds quite less noble that way. Attaching “I’m doing this for my family” to anything gets it instant credibility (as you can see in the comical attempt by Terrell Owens to proclaim that he had to make more millions to feed his family). But on the other hand - I’m not saying this is always the case. Having dependents can certainly change your priorities. Just thinking out loud, I guess.
Yes, but let me also note that you’ve accurately cast your evaluation in terms of “nobility.” I would agree that a noble person might well place the country’s welfare above his own. But what calculation is the recipient of this aid making, when he demands it? Someone might say, “My son needs this help!” But turn it around: “You should suffer so my son gets this help!” sounds a bit less noble, although perfectly understandable.
So perhaps we should not begin the analysis by asking about nobility. Perhaps the discussion should begin by saying that we value individual freedom the most, and that while we can accept incursions against that individual freedom, we do so reluctantly, not as a starting point.
In what way would “government have[ing] a major role in providing this insurance” improve things?
Governments are best at taking things from some people, giving things to others and to the extent they do anything they do it very inefficiently… at least in my opinion.
IINAR, but I say leave it up to the states. We’re too big a country with too diverse a populace for a one-size-fits-all solution. I can’t think of another western democracy with UHC that is as big (population wise and geographically) as the US. Canada, which is the most logical comparison, has fewer people than CA.
Then get rid of the anti-competition clause and the special tax breaks for employers.
This thread tends to confirm my suspicions, that Republicans have no interest in health care reform, and feel that the system we have is about as good as it can be, bad as it is.
My understanding of tort reform is that it would only limit the “Alabama Lottery” awards, while the bulk of malpractice claims that drive up premiums are small attempts to make a few thousand dollars out of some bad luck. It still seems like a good idea on its own merits, but wouldn’t make health care much cheaper. Atul Gawande demonstrated how locales operating under the same malpractice rules have huge variances in the use of so-called “defensive medicine.”
FSAs are fantastic, of course, and they should roll over, perhaps into a MSA. This isn’t going have much effect that I can see, though, because health care is one of those markets in which supply and demand just don’t work. Unlike with elective procedures, there is no x to the demand curve.
The rest of the developed world has UHC but only because the US spends insane amounts of money on its military?
Hahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha!
The US government already has a major role in providing health insurance -
That’s fairly significant. Keep in mind that Medicare is running at a deficit, and is scheduled to go bankrupt altogether in six years or so.
Health care reform = actions taken to reduce the overall cost of health care, and which address the root causes of health care inflation.
If Medicare is your government model for UHC, that strikes me as the classic “buy at seven cents, sell at three, and make up the difference on volume”.
This is not to say that there is nothing we can do. It is saying that effective measures are going to be painful, probably involving denying care.
Pretty much by definition covering more people will mean increased demand, which means the roughly 85% of the US public now covered by insurance will have to pay more and/or get less. It’s not like they aren’t already - health care providers jack up the cost to the insured to cover their losses on Medicare patients and the uninsured. Paying thru government does nothing to change this - the taxpayer is merely paying thru taxes instead of thru higher insurance premiums. And the notion that preventative care is going to save money in the long run is not one that seems to be borne out by the data (cite, cite, cite).
Is that what you were asking about?
Regards,
Shodan
Does this come down to a type of “Survival of the fittest” attitude? Those who can afford it survive. Those who can’t, well, you’re shit out of luck.
Is that essentially what it comes down to for people like yourself?
People who have lost their jobs and insurance with various illnesses and diseases. Well, sucks to be them. But I ain’t payin for it.
That’s how I see their attitude. “I got mine, screw you”. It’s all summed up nicely here.
40,000 Americans die every year because they lack health care matters not one whit to them. Those “principles” which they hold so dear are more important to them than these thousands of needless deaths.
If the cornerstone of your reform is tort reform, you’re either a shill for the malpractice insurance industry or uninformed. Even if you got tort reform, the effect on health care cost would be minimal, the effect on access would be zero. To Obama’s credit, early last year he asked Republicans: “If I gave you tort reform, what would you put on the table?” His answer was chirping crickets.
I would say that a starting point for health care reform is that for the amount of money we are already putting into the system, we could provide better and more efficient healthcare to more people. And personally, the way I think we should do that is by encouraging more competition between health care providers. Make health care more portable so it isn’t tied to your employer. That sort of stuff.
Actually, if you have health insurance, some fraction of the burden is spread around the people in your insurance pool. That’s why you got the coverage in the first place, wasn’t it.
So let me ask a very concrete question. There’s no insurance company in this state that will sell my daughter health insurance. Not at any price, any waiting period, any disqualification for preexisting conditions, nothing. That means every time my daughter goes to the doctor, she pays 100% of her health care costs. And the only question is whether she’ll one day have a health problem that will outstrip her ability to pay.
Now here’s my question. If my daughter can’t buy insurance at any price, it must be because the insurance companies don’t believe they can service her and still makle a profit.
Should the private insurance companies be forced to take on customers they don’t want?
Should her employer (a small business) be compelled to provide group insurance no matter what the cost?
Should the government – either directly or through some 3rd party – establish a program to cover people who can’t get insurance any other way?
Or, if my daughter has to go to the hospital for complications from H1N1, do they refuse to treat her until they’ve determined they won’t also lose money.
Tell me which scenario matches your principles.
No. What **Bricker **is saying is that we, as a society, might decide to help some portion of our society out (the needy) as a matter of principal (or whatever), but he doesn’t want to start the debate off assuming that those people have a right to that help.