I usually try to respond to people point by point, but there’s so much in this post that is straw man or otherwise just untrue stuff that I’ll just point all of it out.
No idea what you are talking about here. Got an example? In any case, I never suggested anyone move. You’re responding to your own odd hypothetical here.
I never said we shouldn’t. Everyone should have more freedom. Of course, the poor will always have less options than the rich. There’s no way to prevent this, plus why would we want to?
No. Why should they?
This isn’t true. You can choose a company with better healthcare. Plus, many companies offer multiple plans. Plenty of people have two employees in the household and can pick which plan to use. To state people have “no choice” is silly.
You must have missed my “good” option. I describe the two options you are limiting yourself to as “bad” and “worse” for a reason.
That’s not ironic. That’s my point. If healthcare decisions are done at the national level, the only way to choose another option is to choose another country. This is worse than the current system of choosing another job, which in turn is worse than my preferred system of just choosing your own coverage all by yourself.
Cite that only 1% of people in the US cannot afford health care coverage on their own?
Or, do you mean that only 1% could afford cancer treatment without coverage, just paying for it with cash? If so, this isn’t anything myself or anyone else has suggested.
Do you misunderstand people’s positions this badly, or are you just arguing against something no one has suggested?
No one.
But people do subject themselves to lots of tests that aren’t needed by doctors who recommend them despite them having little or no value. Are you seriously not aware of this being a problem?
Yes. You can. I did.
I must be better at it than you are.
For laser eye surgery? Really? Plenty of people do this without problems. The only issues I hear about are the people who go up to Canada to get it on the cheap.
Do I understand you correctly? I don’t want to do to you what you’ve been doing to me by butchering my arguments so badly into unrecognizable form.
But you seem to be saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to make medical decisions for themselves? Is that right?
Hypothetical: Patient has cancer. Two courses of treatment are possible. Both have various risks and possible outcomes. Who gets to decide what action to take? The doctor? The government? If not the patient, then who?
Agreed. No one claimed this, so I don’t know why you’d point it out.
I did claim that people come from all over the world to get care in the US, since that’s true and they do. But it’s not a monopoly despite your attempt to frame my argument as such.
This isn’t true. You don’t need to pick individual stocks to do well in the market.
Not true. The market has recovered nicely since then. You’d only lose money in that crash if you sold everything at the bottom of it, which I haven’t suggested anyone do.
Not true. No middle men are needed. Your questions here are in response to your own idea that no one else has suggested.
You said the “vast majority” think it works. But the best cite you could get was that 75% agreed with this: “do you think the benefits from Social Security are worth the cost of the program for taxpayers, or are they not worth the cost”
First of all, that’s not a “vast” majority. Second of all, it’s not the same thing at all as what you said. I can see myself agreeing with that statement. That statement is more about how much of the budget goes to SS. I don’t have much of a problem with that. But I’d completely disagree that social security “works”. It’s what the program is doing with the money that is foolish. This most people understand, as my cite clearly shows.
Yes, that reason is that seniors are dependent on it and are terrified of it being cut. This has nothing to do with how effective the actual program is. In fact, the dependency that it creates on people is one of the more insidious things about it.
Of course, older people who have been forced to pay in their whole lives don’t want the money taken away. Why would they? So it makes a good attack.
Younger people, and indeed majorities of all people, as my cite shows clearly don’t think the program “works”. This is why you have to infer that it does based on all sorts of other things rather than just admitting that you’ve got nothing. You made a claim that you can’t back up because it just isn’t true.
All you had to do is walk it back a bit and say something like “most” instead of “vast majority” and talk about existing retirees rather than everyone and you might have had a defensible position.
I think people who are against birth control pills are probably a very small amount of people. Not all religious people are conservative. Mennoites, Quakers, Unitarians, Bahai’s, Pentacostals, Pax Christi Catholics, Buddhists and the Amish, plus several liberal protestant groups have long records of being pacificts. Now, pacifism isn’t a deeply held religious belief among all Pentacostals, but it is for some Pentacostals.
So, should we, the religious pacifists, be required to support the military? Should we, if we are employers, be required to give reservists time off to fill their duty requirements?
How about if I have a religious objection to the death penalty? Should I be required to give employees time off for jury duty if there is a chance they could serve on a capital case? How about if I have a policy of paying people who end up in jury duty, believing that its an important civic duty they shouldn’t be penalized for - can I withhold that pay ONLY if they end up on a capital case?
Yes, you should. For this to be analogous to health care there would have to be multiple options for reservists, some of which do not involve war. Something like the Peace Corps. If there were a choice, as there is with health care, then yes I would support a religious company choosing to support the Peace Corps over the Military.
But there isn’t. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way.
Again, not analogous. For this analogy to work it again must be a choice. Here’s one that works: You have a religious objection as an employer to suicide. You choose a healthcare plan that doesn’t cover physician assisted suicide. I’m fine with that.
Do you see the difference?
It’s OK to oppose something: War, birth control, death penalty, suicide, etc. But you can’t be expected to be completely shielded from it or having your taxes pay for it. Where I do draw the line is forcing someone to directly pay for it. Not just via taxes, since there’s always going to be some of that. But directly. A company shouldn’t have to buy birth control if they don’t want to.
I disagree with that choice, but it’s their choice to make.
No nit left behind! Sorry, I’m sticking with vast.
There’s nothing about the budget in there. The question in simple terms is ‘is the program worth what it costs,’ and by just about a three-to-one margin, people said yes.
Your cite didn’t address the general question of satisfaction with the program, nevermind getting into details about how the money is spent. If you read more closely you will see Gallup asked about “the state of the nation” with regard to the Social Security and Medicare systems. It’s not a question about how respondents feel about the program itself. And again, a lot of that reflects the fact that people talk about the system as if it’s in critical danger and needs to be turned into something else immediately so it doesn’t vanish. Scary rhetoric does worry people. That’s what it’s for.
My cite was a question asked of all adults, not existing retirees. For that matter other (older) CBS showed that a slim majority opposed changing the way these benefits are calculated, that majorities approved of cost of living increases and the allocation of more money to people with lower incomes, and an overwhelming majority said the program had been good for the country.
For those lowest on the socio-economic ladder yes, it DOES impair access to the most effective forms of birth control, which arguably, given the impact of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising a kid, are the people most in need of birth control.
This isn’t just about Hobby Lobby - it’s a foot in the door for those like the Catholic Church who would ban all birth control and provide none in their employer-sponsored health care policies if they could get away with it.
[QUOTE=Broomstick]
Just because your healthcare offers birth control or abortion or anything else your religion might disapprove of doesn’t mean you have to use it.
[/QUOTE]
You and your employer, however, have to pay for it whether it is used or not.
“Welcome to XCorp. One of the conditions of employment is that you must donate 1% of your income to the Republican party. You don’t have to vote Republican, you don’t have to attend any of the caucuses. You just need to give the money.”
Back when I lived in the Detroit area the local economy was severely depressed and there were little to no job opportunities. I got a job only when I moved 300 miles away. There’s one example.
There are small towns even today where just one, maybe two, companies fully dominate the economy. These would be towns where, for example, the major “industry” is a local penitentiary, or a local meat processing plant that employs the majority of adults in the town. You have little choice other than to work for the one big employer, work in service jobs like gas station attendant which typically don’t provide insurance, or move elsewhere to obtain other employment.
You seriously are unaware of these things? Where do you live?
Providing more options and opportunities to the poor makes it more likely they will prosper and increase their wealthy, just as increased opportunities and options for the wealthy increase their prosperity. Shouldn’t be be trying to assist those on the bottom in improving their lives and productivity rather than raising obstacles?
Then why should they be able to dictate what form of birth control you use, or if you use any?
If a medical option is legal then the decision should be between the doctor and patient, not between the insurance company and the patient’s employer.
No, you can’t. You can APPLY to a company with better healthcare but if that company isn’t hiring or doesn’t want you then eff you.
Plenty don’t. Even those that do only offer a handful at most, all coverage decisions and options made by the employer first. The employer dictates what choices the employees do or don’t have other than looking for work elsewhere. Even if the choice is amenable to the employee one year the employer can unilaterally change to different choices the next year, or simply drop coverage entirely. This is not something the employee controls.
Plenty of people DON’T have that option, even if both there are two employed adults in the family, because fewer and fewer companies are offering healthcare options at all.
Your “good” option leaves the poor to die because they simply don’t have the money for care. I find that repugnant.
Once again:
If the government is running health care then the votes have some input. If a private company is making decisions then the employees have no voice.
Also, if a government run system is so inferior why do all those other countries get better outcomes for less money? Apparently reality does not conform to your theory. In science, that means you revise your theory to fit reality. Only in politics is the practice to stubbornly deny reality.
That is not what I said. For those who don’t want to dig back through the posts, what i actually said was
Yes, people can afford a broken leg. Even poor people can usually borrow or work out a payment plan and pay it off eventually. That wasn’t what I was talking about.
What I was talking about is truly catastrophic conditions. A lot of cancers cost millions to treat when you add in all costs. Who the F has that kind of funds? Organ transplants are another issue - if you don’t have good insurance coverage or a LOT of money in the bank you don’t even get on the list for an organ. If you do have insurance but lose it you’ll lose the transplant organ because it cost lots of money to maintain anti-rejection regimens. If you suffer a major burn requiring skin grafting and rehab you’ll need millions.
If you go to strictly “everyone pays out of pocket” only the very wealthiest will have access to cancer treatment, organ transplants, restorative (to the extent possible) care for major trauma, and so on. Particularly since if you’re that sick or injured likely you won’t be keeping your job and income.
That is largely a problem with medical malpractice suits. Doctors order excessive tests to cover their asses. We have a problem with medical malpractice because the jacked up health insurance system, where your coverage is dependent on your employer and you’re very likely to lose your job if you become seriously ill or injured, gives a definite incentive to suing to cover soaring medical bills.
If everyone was equally covered regardless of employment status (you know, like in Europe), there would be far less incentive to sue and/or ask for massive payouts to cover the bills.
Actually, I was pretty damn good at negotiating. I routinely got 40% or more discounts on “retail” prices. Eventually, with many phone calls and a lot of leg work. I question if the AVERAGE person with no experience in the industry (which I have) can do that with any skill.
Actually, most people I talk to have no idea they can negotiate these things. No one tells them. There are few others things were you can routinely haggle the price so it never occurs to them to attempt it.
My old optometrist shared office space with another eye doctor whose entire practice consisted of managing and mitigating bad outcomes from laser eye surgery. Outside of that, I know about a half dozen people who wound up with worse vision post laser surgery than before. Most of those surgeries were done in the Chicago area. So yeah, “plenty” of people do this with no problem. Plenty DO have problems. Maybe you don’t see it. A lot of people who do have bad outcomes from anything medical aren’t inclined to discuss it frequently, particularly if the procedure was elective.
No, what I’m saying is that laypeople do not have the knowledge base to make sound medical decisions.
The doctor.
Absolutely the patient should have a lot of input and this should be discussed between doctor and patient. The patient always has the right to refuse. But no, the patient should NOT choose what they want for their cancer treatment because they don’t have the knowledge to make an effective choice. The doctor provides options along with the benefits and defects of each, then the patient can choose among those options but no, patients should not have carte blanche to make medical decisions any more than an airline passenger should be able to dictate what route the airplane takes or what altitude it flies at.
So… .turn it over and everyone then manages their own retirement fund? Since when is the average American a competent investment authority? Hell, most of them don’t even have a savings account! You’re expecting them to manage a retirement fund? How much education in finance does a professional fund manager have? Now what makes you think the average American has anywhere near that level of knowledge and financial savvy?
The only ones, outside those with accounting degrees or who work in fiance, are those who hire competent advisers. A middle man. So why not have the government hire a crew of those to begin with?
I don’t do my own plumbing, I hire a plumber. When I had to sue someone I hired a lawyer because I know I’m not one myself. Why the hell would I make medical decisions without hiring a doctor, or retirement decisions without hiring a financial expert? I know I don’t have sufficient competence in those areas to make such weighty decisions so I seek expert help.
All the more reason to go to government-funded single-payer universal health care supported by taxes. That way no employer is paying directly for something they object to but those who do not share the same magical sky pixie friend can have full access to all legal options.
Here’s the catch, as I see it. The doctor can choose what they believe is the best treatment, but the fly in the ointment is that the insurance plan decides what and how much they’ll cover, and the plan itself is chosen by the employer.
That’s what makes today’s system suck so much worse; for example I have hypertension, and if my Dr. prescribes me something like say… losartan, it’s pretty cheap, since it’s a first-line treatment and available in generic form. If for some reason, he decides he prefers Diovan for my situation, then my cost goes WAY up since Diovan isn’t first-line, and isn’t available as a generic.
In this hypothetical situation, my employer’s affecting my treatment because of the insurance plan they chose to offer, and its coverage of prescription/non-prescription drugs. I can always tell my Dr. that, and see if he’ll prescribe something different, but if he sticks to his guns, the difference between it and the insurance-recommended drugs comes out of my pocket, all because my employer chose one plan over another. Or if I can’t afford it, I don’t get treatment, which is worse.
Just picking one thing more or less at random, now:
No. I didn’t mean that or I would have said that.
You should try asking questions of people if you don’t understand something. Your current tactic of making up something basically out of whole cloth to then refute even though it hasn’t been argued by anyone just isn’t working for me.
There are a bunch of ways you could have people safely invest without needing middlemen. One is simple index funds that are broad swaths of the economy and have low or no fees. These already exist and are a perfectly acceptable option for saving for retirement. You don’t need a middle man to buy them, nor do you need to let people wildly pick stocks as amateurs either.
The rest of your wild assumptions and odd questions I won’t answer this time around because I fail to see the point.
However, it’s a much worse problem if the patient doesn’t even bother to ask the Doctor for the cheaper option because he doesn’t care. That’s why if it’s coming out of the patient’s pocket, or out of a health savings account there is a motivator for at least attempting to control costs. When everything is just free that’s when the price goes way up.
This same concept is why elective surgeries are so much more affordable than comparable surgeries that insurance covers. Whatever the optimal solution is, it would have to address this.
Most healthcare plans now attempt to do this with co-pays and co-insurance and such, but it’s limited in effectiveness. With insurance only covering catastrophic coverage would make more sense. Regular care gets paid out of pocket and in between gets covered by a HSA.
I don’t want to digress here into a debate about health care systems, but that’s an utterly bizarre ideological rationalization that makes no real-world sense. You might “feel free” to pay medical expenses out of pocket, but when those expenses total thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, for most people that isn’t a realistic option or possible at all. For most people, their health insurance pretty much determines their health care. (And of course it’s precisely those expensive procedures where the insurance company is likely to intervene most aggressively.)
You’re right in one respect, though – one of the profound ironies of private health insurance is that to the extent that a good chunk of the premium goes to administrative overhead, the patient really is paying for the “privilege” of insurance company bureaucrats meddling between the patient and his doctor. The problem disappears in single-payer because the entire cost control model is completely different, and there’s no adjudication at the individual patient level, and thus no bureaucrats meddling at the clinical level.
Then why not change SS so the government can invest in Index funds instead of handing it all over to individuals. Surely there would be benefit in economy of scale?
Factually incorrect. In the majority of developed countries, you have the choice between public healthcare, out of pocket healthcare, and insurance. And since the options are far more affordable than in the US, you have far more real choice.
Imagine if everyone was on VA, or Medicare, with the entrie rest of the health care structure in place. They’d just have to adjust to the new competitive environment. Its much like that.
Exceptions include Canada, Aitzerland and Germany, as I understand.
Because the government won’t be able to resist political interference in what they invest in. They’ll start saying, “Okay, we’ll invest in and index fund of stocks, but not companies that sell tobacco. Oh, now we’re going to exclude companies doing business with Iran too. Wait, there’s an emergency! We need to subsidize green companies! Let’s take some money out of the soda companies and give it directly to companies like Solar City and Tesla!”
Pension funds disinvest all the time for political reasons. It does not serve the interests of pensioners.
Germany is multi-payer. Canada is very problematic on the issue of private care although a human rights court struck down an anti-private insurance law in Quebec:
Although the US is very unlikely to take this path of placing ideology over human life, I wouldn’t put it past some people who support single payer.
As long as you don’t have a condition that puts you on a long waiting list, with private care unavailable unless you leave the country. It’s a hole in the system that is unjustified.
People often like to compare the US’s and other countries’ results to prove that US care is poor. Okay, but it’s just as fair to compare the results of single-payer systems to multi-payer systems. The multi-payer systems are not deficient compared to the single payer systems, so there’s no actual, practical reason to ban private insurance or doctors taking cashpaying patients. It’s pure ideology, insensitive to the needs of actual people.