Health Care - we gotta fix this shit...

[joaquinmiller]

It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good. There frequently is no "substitute good". Specialties are not fungible. There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room. (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)

BTW, the hypothetical abdominal aortic aneurysm may be a genetic trait and an unknown pre-existing condition. I'm leery of anyone thinking they can adequately prepare for the unknown, particularly in a situation which brings them face-to-face with their instinct for survival.

None of this has any bearing on the core issue: why do you feel justified in forcing you preferences on others? You can be "leery" about my choices all you want, but it's really none of your business. You make your choices, I'll make mine. Fair enough?

Promise to die before you reach 65. If you live long enough, you'll go on Medicare, and it will be my business. God knows how much we'll pay to keep you in an Alzheimer's Unit.

 

[dblack]

It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good. There frequently is no "substitute good". Specialties are not fungible. There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room. (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)

BTW, the hypothetical abdominal aortic aneurysm may be a genetic trait and an unknown pre-existing condition. I'm leery of anyone thinking they can adequately prepare for the unknown, particularly in a situation which brings them face-to-face with their instinct for survival.

None of this has any bearing on the core issue: why do you feel justified in forcing you preferences on others? You can be "leery" about my choices all you want, but it's really none of your business. You make your choices, I'll make mine. Fair enough?

Promise to die before you reach 65. If you live long enough, you'll go on Medicare, and it will be my business. God knows how much we'll pay to keep you in an Alzheimer's Unit.

Then change Medicare. Don't use it as an excuse to lord it over everyone.

 

[joaquinmiller]

It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good. There frequently is no "substitute good". Specialties are not fungible. There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room. (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)

BTW, the hypothetical abdominal aortic aneurysm may be a genetic trait and an unknown pre-existing condition. I'm leery of anyone thinking they can adequately prepare for the unknown, particularly in a situation which brings them face-to-face with their instinct for survival.

None of this has any bearing on the core issue: why do you feel justified in forcing you preferences on others? You can be "leery" about my choices all you want, but it's really none of your business. You make your choices, I'll make mine. Fair enough?

Promise to die before you reach 65. If you live long enough, you'll go on Medicare, and it will be my business. God knows how much we'll pay to keep you in an Alzheimer's Unit.

Then change Medicare. Don't use it as an excuse to lord it over everyone.

What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?

 

[Howard Roark]

What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?

You ask a question that requires a modicum of cognitive ability.

That seems to be lacking in this discussion.

 

[joaquinmiller]

What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?

You ask a question that requires a modicum of cognitive ability.

That seems to be lacking in this discussion.

The line between "American" and "every-man-for-himself" is not a fine one.

 

[dblack]

It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good. There frequently is no "substitute good". Specialties are not fungible. There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room. (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)

BTW, the hypothetical abdominal aortic aneurysm may be a genetic trait and an unknown pre-existing condition. I'm leery of anyone thinking they can adequately prepare for the unknown, particularly in a situation which brings them face-to-face with their instinct for survival.

None of this has any bearing on the core issue: why do you feel justified in forcing you preferences on others? You can be "leery" about my choices all you want, but it's really none of your business. You make your choices, I'll make mine. Fair enough?

Promise to die before you reach 65. If you live long enough, you'll go on Medicare, and it will be my business. God knows how much we'll pay to keep you in an Alzheimer's Unit.

Then change Medicare. Don't use it as an excuse to lord it over everyone.

What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?

None of your business. That's the entire point I'm making here. I actually agree with many of your comments about health care in general, but they don't justify forcing your prescription for the "right way to do health care" on everyone else.

 

[Flopper]

It would be interesting to see just exactly how you would do that

It might interesting, but it's none of your business. I think that's the part you really don't get.

In other words, you have no idea how you would go about regulating healthcare costs.

No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government. In that environment, they have to make the decision as to what they will pay for. The individual can have any type healthcare procedures they choose as long as they are willing and able to pay for it and a health professional will provide it.

 

[dblack]

No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.

And that's the problem, not the solution.

 

[Flopper]

No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.

And that's the problem, not the solution.

That may be the problem however it's not going to change. In fact healthcare coverage has been increasing over the last 10 years. Currently all or part of the healthcare bills of 90% of Americans are paid by insurance companies or government.

 

[dblack]

No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.

And that's the problem, not the solution.

That may be the problem however it's not going to change. In fact healthcare coverage has been increasing over the last 10 years. Currently all or part of the healthcare bills of 90% of Americans are paid by insurance companies or government.

It's got to change. The current system is failing. And no, piling on more of the same (more government, more insurance) is not the answer.

 

[Flopper]

No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.

And that's the problem, not the solution.

That may be the problem however it's not going to change. In fact healthcare coverage has been increasing over the last 10 years. Currently all or part of the healthcare bills of 90% of Americans are paid by insurance companies or government.

It's got to change. The current system is failing. And no, piling on more of the same (more government, more insurance) is not the answer.

No, it does not have to change, although it should. America spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. It's higher than other countries not because of what government does but what it doesn't do. Americans pay far higher prices for drugs than any other country. For the 20 top selling drugs, Americans pay 3 times the cost that Europeans pay. This is because, US drug companies are allow to charge what the market will bear and market completion exists only low priced generic drugs. The administrative cost of health care in the US is about 8%, over twice that of other developed countries. This is because America has so many different payers in both government and the private sector. The cost of handling so many different payers each with different contracted pay amounts and different rules has made medical billing a major industry.

What we should do is reduce the number of payers, force drug prices down as almost all other countries have down, and provide better incentives to reduce hospital costs.

 

[dblack]

No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.

And that's the problem, not the solution.

That may be the problem however it's not going to change. In fact healthcare coverage has been increasing over the last 10 years. Currently all or part of the healthcare bills of 90% of Americans are paid by insurance companies or government.

It's got to change. The current system is failing. And no, piling on more of the same (more government, more insurance) is not the answer.

What we should do is reduce the number of payers, force drug prices down as almost all other countries have down, and provide better incentives to reduce hospital costs.

No, that's even worse. I don't want Trump in charge of my health care. I don't want Congress in charge of my health care. If you can come up with a way to get what you want that can be implemented voluntarily, and doesn't centralize control of one fifth of our nation's spending, I'd love to hear it.

But enough with the laws already. That's what got us into this mess.

 

[usmcstinger]

Under Single Payer Health Care, the Federal Government determines wether or not you can receive life saving operations.

 

[Howard Roark]

Under Single Payer Health Care, the Federal Government determines wether or not you can receive life saving operations.

LMAO

 

[danielpalos]

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a good place to start.

 

[dblack]

Under Single Payer Health Care, the Federal Government determines wether or not you can receive life saving operations.

LMAO

Why is that funny to you?

 

[Flopper]

Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.

And that's the problem, not the solution.

That may be the problem however it's not going to change. In fact healthcare coverage has been increasing over the last 10 years. Currently all or part of the healthcare bills of 90% of Americans are paid by insurance companies or government.

It's got to change. The current system is failing. And no, piling on more of the same (more government, more insurance) is not the answer.

What we should do is reduce the number of payers, force drug prices down as almost all other countries have down, and provide better incentives to reduce hospital costs.

No, that's even worse. I don't want Trump in charge of my health care. I don't want Congress in charge of my health care. If you can come up with a way to get what you want that can be implemented voluntarily, and doesn't centralize control of one fifth of our nation's spending, I'd love to hear it.

But enough with the laws already. That's what got us into this mess.

The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.

If your doctor says he considers a treatment medical necessary, the chances are your health insurer, be it private or government will agree.

 

[dblack]

The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.

Yep. And the less you pay for it, the less control you have. If government is the 'single' payer for all health care, you have no fucking choice at all. Can't imagine why you think is would be an improvement.

 

[Flopper]

The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.

Yep. And the less you pay for it, the less control you have. If government is the 'single' payer for all health care, you have no fucking choice at all. Can't imagine why you think is would be an improvement.

Most people aren't looking for choices in healthcare. They're looking for quality care with lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower coinsurance, and insurance that can be used anywhere in the country that's independent of their employer.

Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it. No one should have to worry about being able to afford healthcare or having to change doctors because their employer goes to a new plan, or to move to different state to get Medicaid coverage, or pay 3 times as much for prescription drugs as the rest of world.

 

[dblack]

The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.

Yep. And the less you pay for it, the less control you have. If government is the 'single' payer for all health care, you have no fucking choice at all. Can't imagine why you think is would be an improvement.

Most people aren't looking for choices in healthcare.

If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?

Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it.

Totally agree. Any laws forcing them to do so should be repealed immediately.