Does an insurance model work for healthcare?

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.

In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.

Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.

What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?

Rabbi's not too bright and very conservative; he rejects anything which does not fit into the ultra right wing model. I suspect he doesn't understand what preventative medicine is so a cost-benefit analysis never occured to him, nor would he accept a cost-benefit analysis not anointed by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or a Fox News talking head.

Translation: NO, I cannot provide any study that supports my view. But it sounds good, dammit.
Thanks for playing. It is exactly crappy "common sense" like yours that has us in this mess. It is common sense that if you give people more time to pay on their mortgage then they'll get caught up,right? Wrong. About 80% of people who went through HAMP ended up foreclosed on anyway.

There is no, zero, evidence that a universal program would be cost effective. It would be a way to hire more bureaucrats and increase taxation and control under the rubric of saving money.

Remember when Obamacare was claimed to be a money saver? I realize that is ancient history here but that was the claim.
Your debating skills, logic and knowledge base have been revealed here to be laughable at best.

 

[Cuyo]

Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.

In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.

Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.

What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?

I am looking for any study that confirms that universal preventative care decreases costs in the long run.

Have you compared our healthcare costs per capita and key health stats to that of other nations?

 

[The Rabbi]

In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.

Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.

What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?

I am looking for any study that confirms that universal preventative care decreases costs in the long run.

Have you compared our healthcare costs per capita and key health stats to that of other nations?

Have you gotten your head out of your ass this morning?
So you have no studies that might confirm the thesis here, right?

 

[Cuyo]

I am looking for any study that confirms that universal preventative care decreases costs in the long run.

Have you compared our healthcare costs per capita and key health stats to that of other nations?

Have you gotten your head out of your ass this morning?
So you have no studies that might confirm the thesis here, right?

Answer the question slapnuts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Have you compared our healthcare costs per capita and key health stats to that of other nations?

Have you gotten your head out of your ass this morning?
So you have no studies that might confirm the thesis here, right?

Answer the question slapnuts.

I askled first, dickhead.
The answer is no. You cannot provide a single study confirming the thesis.
The answer to the second question is no too. You have not gotten your head out of your ass this morning.

 

[Cuyo]

Have you gotten your head out of your ass this morning?
So you have no studies that might confirm the thesis here, right?

Answer the question slapnuts.

I askled first, dickhead.
The answer is no. You cannot provide a single study confirming the thesis.
The answer to the second question is no too. You have not gotten your head out of your ass this morning.

hmm. A 'Conservative' who refuses to acknowledge an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests he's dead-fucking-wrong. When confronted with this, he resorts to personal attacks.

That's refreshing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rabbi demands proof that early detection of disease is cost effective and saves lives. He wants a 'study' to provide such proof. Whether one exists or not, I do not know, nor do I care. If one were provided he would shrug it off as one done by some liberal professor with a communist agenda.

It seems self evidenct that providing age appropriate physcial exams along with lab tests, health education and innoculations will prevent some disease, discover disease early, prevent complications and in the long run reduce costs and human misery.

One example which might have occured to Rabbi were he not so not too bright: see:

Salk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease : NPR

Of course Rabbi will dismiss this link for it was produced by NPR - and must therefore be a commie plot.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi demands proof that early detection of disease is cost effective and saves lives. He wants a 'study' to provide such proof. Whether one exists or not, I do not know, nor do I care. If one were provided he would shrug it off as one done by some liberal professor with a communist agenda.

It seems self evidenct that providing age appropriate physcial exams along with lab tests, health education and innoculations will prevent some disease, discover disease early, prevent complications and in the long run reduce costs and human misery.

One example which might have occured to Rabbi were he not so not too bright: see:

Salk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease : NPR

Of course Rabbi will dismiss this link for it was produced by NPR - and must therefore be a commie plot.

.

You obviously don't understand what I am asking, and therefore fail to produce evidence.
You are one gynormous fail here.

Still asking for proof that a universal program will actually save money.

 

[Bern80]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

You have car insurance that will pay for maintenance, oil changes, brake pads and engine work?

You have home owners insurance that will put in new carpet and paint your walls?

The only question is if you're dumb or being difficult just for the sake of it.

I think that's the point some are trying to make. Maybe health insurance should be more like auto insurance and not pay in some form for every little thing under the sun.

 

[RDD_1210]

Rabbi demands proof that early detection of disease is cost effective and saves lives. He wants a 'study' to provide such proof. Whether one exists or not, I do not know, nor do I care. If one were provided he would shrug it off as one done by some liberal professor with a communist agenda.

It seems self evidenct that providing age appropriate physcial exams along with lab tests, health education and innoculations will prevent some disease, discover disease early, prevent complications and in the long run reduce costs and human misery.

One example which might have occured to Rabbi were he not so not too bright: see:

Salk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease : NPR

Of course Rabbi will dismiss this link for it was produced by NPR - and must therefore be a commie plot.

.

You obviously don't understand what I am asking, and therefore fail to produce evidence.
You are one gynormous fail here.

Still asking for proof that a universal program will actually save money.

Whats the point in trying to prove anything to you? You've already demonstrated in multiple other threads that no amount of proof is ever good enough for you. You will either move the goal posts or ignore the thread entirely. Just take a look at the thread where you claimed that black people can't be good leaders simply because of the color of their skin.

 

[Bern80]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

Houses do get old, well maintained houses last for centuries, those not maintained do not. Same with cars and people too. There is another comparison, if cars and homes are regualrly inspected - have routine physicals with regularity - problems can be discovered early and treatments applied. Repairing a roof or changing the oil can and does extend their 'life'; do the same with people and they to will avoid early decay or collapse.

In response to the OP it makes sense for the government to provide universal preventative healthcare to all; there are a number of ways to do this. Those who have their personal oil changed and roof repaired at appropriate intervals would likely be healthier, saving families and insurance companies $$$$$ in the long term.

That this is true is obvious, for the only retort to such a suggestion is an emotional one. The hysterics and the propaganda purveyors are now free to call such an idea socialism.

Since you draw comparisons between the different forms of insurance (parallels I would agree with) and you advocate for government somehow sponsoring people having 'routine maintenance' to stave of bigger more costly issues later, why do you not advocate the same things for car and home owners?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rabbi demands proof that early detection of disease is cost effective and saves lives. He wants a 'study' to provide such proof. Whether one exists or not, I do not know, nor do I care. If one were provided he would shrug it off as one done by some liberal professor with a communist agenda.

It seems self evidenct that providing age appropriate physcial exams along with lab tests, health education and innoculations will prevent some disease, discover disease early, prevent complications and in the long run reduce costs and human misery.

One example which might have occured to Rabbi were he not so not too bright: see:

Salk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease : NPR

Of course Rabbi will dismiss this link for it was produced by NPR - and must therefore be a commie plot.

.

You obviously don't understand what I am asking, and therefore fail to produce evidence.
You are one gynormous fail here.

Still asking for proof that a universal program will actually save money.

Well, I suppose not calling the national effort by the government to provide the Salk Vaccine to every American as a commie plot is progress. Even you must admit the cost of treatment - both in dollars and human misery - for reducing the number of polio cases to near zero saved money (well, maybe everyone but you, given your propensity to lie).
Of course I'm confident you bothered not to read the link, and even if you did you lack the imagination and inductive reasoning skills to appreciate such a link.

Prove to me the government can't produce jobs.
Prove to me tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans will expand our economy.
Prove to me that the Republican Party provides the best tool for our national defense.
Prove to me that marriage between a woman and a woman or man and a man harms marriage between a man and a woman.
Prove to me that supply side economics works and benefits all Americans (tricklle down theory).
Prove to me that the Republcan Party will balance the budget.
Prove to me that the Tea Party is not the Republican Party in disguise.
Prove God exists.

 

[editec]

Polk is absolutely right.

The private HC insurance model is flawed beyond repair.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

Houses do get old, well maintained houses last for centuries, those not maintained do not. Same with cars and people too. There is another comparison, if cars and homes are regualrly inspected - have routine physicals with regularity - problems can be discovered early and treatments applied. Repairing a roof or changing the oil can and does extend their 'life'; do the same with people and they to will avoid early decay or collapse.

In response to the OP it makes sense for the government to provide universal preventative healthcare to all; there are a number of ways to do this. Those who have their personal oil changed and roof repaired at appropriate intervals would likely be healthier, saving families and insurance companies $$$$$ in the long term.

That this is true is obvious, for the only retort to such a suggestion is an emotional one. The hysterics and the propaganda purveyors are now free to call such an idea socialism.

Since you draw comparisons between the different forms of insurance (parallels I would agree with) and you advocate for government somehow sponsoring people having 'routine maintenance' to stave of bigger more costly issues later, why do you not advocate the same things for car and home owners?

Everyone owns a body; cars and homes can be easily replaced - losing a child, husband/wife to preventable disease kinda sucks.

 

[Bern80]

Houses do get old, well maintained houses last for centuries, those not maintained do not. Same with cars and people too. There is another comparison, if cars and homes are regualrly inspected - have routine physicals with regularity - problems can be discovered early and treatments applied. Repairing a roof or changing the oil can and does extend their 'life'; do the same with people and they to will avoid early decay or collapse.

In response to the OP it makes sense for the government to provide universal preventative healthcare to all; there are a number of ways to do this. Those who have their personal oil changed and roof repaired at appropriate intervals would likely be healthier, saving families and insurance companies $$$$$ in the long term.

That this is true is obvious, for the only retort to such a suggestion is an emotional one. The hysterics and the propaganda purveyors are now free to call such an idea socialism.

Since you draw comparisons between the different forms of insurance (parallels I would agree with) and you advocate for government somehow sponsoring people having 'routine maintenance' to stave of bigger more costly issues later, why do you not advocate the same things for car and home owners?

Everyone owns a body; cars and homes can be easily replaced - losing a child, husband/wife to preventable disease kinda sucks.

True. But how does the greater importance you place on it translate into on obligation on my part to take care of you? If you don't care enough to take care of yourself, why should anyone else?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi demands proof that early detection of disease is cost effective and saves lives. He wants a 'study' to provide such proof. Whether one exists or not, I do not know, nor do I care. If one were provided he would shrug it off as one done by some liberal professor with a communist agenda.

It seems self evidenct that providing age appropriate physcial exams along with lab tests, health education and innoculations will prevent some disease, discover disease early, prevent complications and in the long run reduce costs and human misery.

One example which might have occured to Rabbi were he not so not too bright: see:

Salk Polio Vaccine Conquered Terrifying Disease : NPR

Of course Rabbi will dismiss this link for it was produced by NPR - and must therefore be a commie plot.

.

You obviously don't understand what I am asking, and therefore fail to produce evidence.
You are one gynormous fail here.

Still asking for proof that a universal program will actually save money.

Well, I suppose not calling the national effort by the government to provide the Salk Vaccine to every American as a commie plot is progress. Even you must admit the cost of treatment - both in dollars and human misery - for reducing the number of polio cases to near zero saved money (well, maybe everyone but you, given your propensity to lie).
Of course I'm confident you bothered not to read the link, and even if you did you lack the imagination and inductive reasoning skills to appreciate such a link.

Prove to me the government can't produce jobs.
Prove to me tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans will expand our economy.
Prove to me that the Republican Party provides the best tool for our national defense.
Prove to me that marriage between a woman and a woman or man and a man harms marriage between a man and a woman.
Prove to me that supply side economics works and benefits all Americans (tricklle down theory).
Prove to me that the Republcan Party will balance the budget.
Prove to me that the Tea Party is not the Republican Party in disguise.
Prove God exists.

You keep insisting you cannot find any study to confirm what you propose. I get the idea already. You don't need to keep repeating you are wrong. That is obvious.

For the record, I asked for any study showing that universal preventive care would be cost effective. So far you have failed to offer such a thing. You deflect to the health situation in France. Or a vaccine given one time. Neither one is applicable here.
I can offer a counter though. You would think that monthly breast exams by women would be a real money saver. After all, early detection is key, right?
Well turns out that is not the case. Study by the Swedish Institute of Health confirmed this.

The other things you propose are easy.
Government does not produce jobs. It costs jobs because it must raise the price of everything in the form of taxation and regulation.

Tax cuts to encourage people to work harder create more economic activity. The US, Ireland, and a few dozen other examples have all confirmed this.

The US military provides the best tool for national defense. Which party has consistently enlarged it? Which party has consistently cut it?

Marriage between a man and a woman strengthens society by producing better adjusted children. Therefore any other arrangement is sub-optimal.

Supply side economics--see above.

The GOP will balance the budget. The Democrats will prevent this though. See current news stories on the budget battle to confirm this.

The Tea party is not the GOP. Look at studies of TP membership. Also the party's chosen candidates tended to lose to TP candidates in the primaries last year.

G-d exists because the universe exists. Same as you know there is a watchmaker because you have a watch. G-d also has a sense of humor because he lets you post here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since you draw comparisons between the different forms of insurance (parallels I would agree with) and you advocate for government somehow sponsoring people having 'routine maintenance' to stave of bigger more costly issues later, why do you not advocate the same things for car and home owners?

Everyone owns a body; cars and homes can be easily replaced - losing a child, husband/wife to preventable disease kinda sucks.

True. But how does the greater importance you place on it translate into on obligation on my part to take care of you? If you don't care enough to take care of yourself, why should anyone else?

I suppose the obvious answer is we pay for medical care anyway. The alcoholic diabetic will continue to recieve medical treatment as will others who believe they are too healthy to pay for it now, and end up in the hospital when injured in an accident. The robber shot and not killed will be treated in a hospital, and we also pay for the sheriff's deputies who stand guard 24-7 while he recovers.

The fact that you don't care about me or others is the basis for another conversation. I understand the New Right rejects social contract theory. I disagree; I reject Objectivism as a practical or humanistic theory of government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You obviously don't understand what I am asking, and therefore fail to produce evidence.
You are one gynormous fail here.

Still asking for proof that a universal program will actually save money.

Well, I suppose not calling the national effort by the government to provide the Salk Vaccine to every American as a commie plot is progress. Even you must admit the cost of treatment - both in dollars and human misery - for reducing the number of polio cases to near zero saved money (well, maybe everyone but you, given your propensity to lie).
Of course I'm confident you bothered not to read the link, and even if you did you lack the imagination and inductive reasoning skills to appreciate such a link.

Prove to me the government can't produce jobs.
Prove to me tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans will expand our economy.
Prove to me that the Republican Party provides the best tool for our national defense.
Prove to me that marriage between a woman and a woman or man and a man harms marriage between a man and a woman.
Prove to me that supply side economics works and benefits all Americans (tricklle down theory).
Prove to me that the Republcan Party will balance the budget.
Prove to me that the Tea Party is not the Republican Party in disguise.
Prove God exists.

You keep insisting you cannot find any study to confirm what you propose. I get the idea already. You don't need to keep repeating you are wrong. That is obvious.

For the record, I asked for any study showing that universal preventive care would be cost effective. So far you have failed to offer such a thing. You deflect to the health situation in France. Or a vaccine given one time. Neither one is applicable here.
I can offer a counter though. You would think that monthly breast exams by women would be a real money saver. After all, early detection is key, right?
Well turns out that is not the case. Study by the Swedish Institute of Health confirmed this.
jClassic straw man arguments along with your usual lies. Never did I mention France and monthly exams for breast cancer is both absurd and dangerous.
The other things you propose are easy.
Government does not produce jobs. It costs jobs because it must raise the price of everything in the form of taxation and regulation.
Prove it. Money spent on bridges, highways and other transportation projects benefits commerce

Tax cuts to encourage people to work harder create more economic activity. The US, Ireland, and a few dozen other examples have all confirmed this.
Bullshit. If true the Bush tax cuts would not have resulted in high unemployment and the Great Recession
The US military provides the best tool for national defense. Which party has consistently enlarged it? Which party has consistently cut it?
Which party sent our troops into harms way unprepared in a war of choice?

Marriage between a man and a woman strengthens society by producing better adjusted children. Therefore any other arrangement is sub-optimal. Bullshit. Provide proof, a study which proves children raised by same sex parents are healthier, wealthier and wiser as adults

Supply side economics--see above.
See how well Reagan and Bush II balanced the budget on supply side theory.

The GOP will balance the budget. The Democrats will prevent this though. See current news stories on the budget battle to confirm this.

The Tea party is not the GOP. Look at studies of TP membership. Also the party's chosen candidates tended to lose to TP candidates in the primaries last year.
The Tea Party is a subset of the Republican Party, and has moved the party far, far right.

G-d exists because the universe exists. Same as you know there is a watchmaker because you have a watch. G-d also has a sense of humor because he lets you post here.

Prove God exists. Don't rely on Descartes, for it's obvious you don't think.

 

[Bern80]

Everyone owns a body; cars and homes can be easily replaced - losing a child, husband/wife to preventable disease kinda sucks.

True. But how does the greater importance you place on it translate into on obligation on my part to take care of you? If you don't care enough to take care of yourself, why should anyone else?

I suppose the obvious answer is we pay for medical care anyway. The alcoholic diabetic will continue to recieve medical treatment as will others who believe they are too healthy to pay for it now, and end up in the hospital when injured in an accident. The robber shot and not killed will be treated in a hospital, and we also pay for the sheriff's deputies who stand guard 24-7 while he recovers.

The fact that you don't care about me or others is the basis for another conversation. I understand the New Right rejects social contract theory. I disagree; I reject Objectivism as a practical or humanistic theory of government.

That is the problem with what you think objectivism is. Objectivism does not say I'm not supposed to care about you. It says you don't have the right to MAKE ME care about you financially. Objectivism says your hardship does not entitle you to my property.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, I suppose not calling the national effort by the government to provide the Salk Vaccine to every American as a commie plot is progress. Even you must admit the cost of treatment - both in dollars and human misery - for reducing the number of polio cases to near zero saved money (well, maybe everyone but you, given your propensity to lie).
Of course I'm confident you bothered not to read the link, and even if you did you lack the imagination and inductive reasoning skills to appreciate such a link.

Prove to me the government can't produce jobs.
Prove to me tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans will expand our economy.
Prove to me that the Republican Party provides the best tool for our national defense.
Prove to me that marriage between a woman and a woman or man and a man harms marriage between a man and a woman.
Prove to me that supply side economics works and benefits all Americans (tricklle down theory).
Prove to me that the Republcan Party will balance the budget.
Prove to me that the Tea Party is not the Republican Party in disguise.
Prove God exists.

You keep insisting you cannot find any study to confirm what you propose. I get the idea already. You don't need to keep repeating you are wrong. That is obvious.

For the record, I asked for any study showing that universal preventive care would be cost effective. So far you have failed to offer such a thing. You deflect to the health situation in France. Or a vaccine given one time. Neither one is applicable here.
I can offer a counter though. You would think that monthly breast exams by women would be a real money saver. After all, early detection is key, right?
Well turns out that is not the case. Study by the Swedish Institute of Health confirmed this.
jClassic straw man arguments along with your usual lies. Never did I mention France and monthly exams for breast cancer is both absurd and dangerous.
The other things you propose are easy.
Government does not produce jobs. It costs jobs because it must raise the price of everything in the form of taxation and regulation.
Prove it. Money spent on bridges, highways and other transportation projects benefits commerce

Tax cuts to encourage people to work harder create more economic activity. The US, Ireland, and a few dozen other examples have all confirmed this.
Bullshit. If true the Bush tax cuts would not have resulted in high unemployment and the Great Recession
The US military provides the best tool for national defense. Which party has consistently enlarged it? Which party has consistently cut it?
Which party sent our troops into harms way unprepared in a war of choice?

Marriage between a man and a woman strengthens society by producing better adjusted children. Therefore any other arrangement is sub-optimal. Bullshit. Provide proof, a study which proves children raised by same sex parents are healthier, wealthier and wiser as adults

Supply side economics--see above.
See how well Reagan and Bush II balanced the budget on supply side theory.

The GOP will balance the budget. The Democrats will prevent this though. See current news stories on the budget battle to confirm this.

The Tea party is not the GOP. Look at studies of TP membership. Also the party's chosen candidates tended to lose to TP candidates in the primaries last year.
The Tea Party is a subset of the Republican Party, and has moved the party far, far right.

G-d exists because the universe exists. Same as you know there is a watchmaker because you have a watch. G-d also has a sense of humor because he lets you post here.

Prove God exists. Don't rely on Descartes, for it's obvious you don't think.

You failed to refute a single thing I wrote. Total, utter and complete failure on your part.
Monthly breast exams are dangerous? Rly??

In particular, a smaller number now self-identify as Republicans, and some 50 percent declare a different political affiliation.

Report: Tea Party Activists Enthusiastic, But Political Affiliations Vary | Personal Liberty Digest