Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is the graphic I was trying to post earlier. Health costs are extremely concentrated.
That's not disproving his point, though, that a mandate would decrease average premium prices.If everyone pays then the price goes down. Its the best way and its the only way.
How the Hell does that work? Government MANDATES to compell people to purchase *ANYTHING* are inheriently frought with problems, and UnConstitutional in the Venue of Healthcare.
Maybe, but check out the Preamble:Healthcare has NOT been proven by LAW to be an established right of any sort, under any circumstances. It's an affront to Liberty of the people.
That "promote the general welfare" is what some consider to justify enabling access to health care, although some may disagree.The Preamble said:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare
This is the graphic I was trying to post earlier. Health costs are extremely concentrated.
Do you have a breakdown of the demographics of the small % using most of the services? The elderly often consume a great deal in their final days - but there are other groups as well.
but supply will increase Bod, if the demand increases....it could take a blip or 2 to get us there with supply, but it will happen....
That's not what existing doctors claim. Many who are in practice now say they will retire or go into other careers.
If the government steps in to say "a medical degree is a right" in order to pump up supply, I doubt any of us will be happy with the quality of such doctors.
No, but I do have the following:Do you have a breakdown of the demographics of the small % using most of the services? The elderly often consume a great deal in their final days - but there are other groups as well.
This accounts for $502 billion. Just based on the statistics, a substantial amount of this is used by the top 10% of the population.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality said:Cost of 10 Most Expensive Health Conditions
Source
- Heart conditions—$76 billion.
- Trauma disorders—$72 billion.
- Cancer—$70 billion.
- Mental disorders, including depression—$56.0 billion.
- Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—$54 billion.
- High blood pressure—$42 billion.
- Type 2 diabetes—$34 billion.
- Osteoarthritis and other joint diseases—$34 billion.
- Back problems—$32 billion.
- Normal childbirth—$32 billion.
but supply will increase Bod, if the demand increases....it could take a blip or 2 to get us there with supply, but it will happen....
That's not what existing doctors claim. Many who are in practice now say they will retire or go into other careers.
If the government steps in to say "a medical degree is a right" in order to pump up supply, I doubt any of us will be happy with the quality of such doctors.
but supply will increase Bod, if the demand increases....it could take a blip or 2 to get us there with supply, but it will happen....
That's not what existing doctors claim. Many who are in practice now say they will retire or go into other careers.
If the government steps in to say "a medical degree is a right" in order to pump up supply, I doubt any of us will be happy with the quality of such doctors.
ye of little faith! we are the greatest country in the world, we can increase doctors without making them lousy doctors....the private sector can do such...
where there is demand, there will be supply....because there is MONEY TO BE MADE.....
if health care does not fit in to a capitalistic widget fashion, then MAYBE it doesn't belong there and needs to be made a gvt run program because it doesn't fit in to capitalism and our market supporting capitalism?
it either runs like a business or it doesn't.
but supply will increase Bod, if the demand increases....it could take a blip or 2 to get us there with supply, but it will happen....
That's not what existing doctors claim. Many who are in practice now say they will retire or go into other careers.
If the government steps in to say "a medical degree is a right" in order to pump up supply, I doubt any of us will be happy with the quality of such doctors.
ye of little faith! we are the greatest country in the world, we can increase doctors without making them lousy doctors....the private sector can do such...
where there is demand, there will be supply....because there is MONEY TO BE MADE.....
if health care does not fit in to a capitalistic widget fashion, then MAYBE it doesn't belong there and needs to be made a gvt run program because it doesn't fit in to capitalism and our market supporting capitalism?
it either runs like a business or it doesn't.
we have plenty of very smart people here....they just don't have the money to pay several hundred thousand for the degree....med schools have been purposely limited, to keep the demand high for docs, so that their pay can stay high....and the school itself can charge more....
well this short sighted plan of theirs is getting ready to burst, with all the boomers hitting retirement and in need of greater health care....
they need to expand med schools, and add new ones....this will bring the cost of schooling down, due to the increase in supply....this will allow more brilliant people to pursue their dream of becoming a doctor....
we have plenty of very smart people here....they just don't have the money to pay several hundred thousand for the degree....med schools have been purposely limited, to keep the demand high for docs, so that their pay can stay high....and the school itself can charge more....
well this short sighted plan of theirs is getting ready to burst, with all the boomers hitting retirement and in need of greater health care....
they need to expand med schools, and add new ones....this will bring the cost of schooling down, due to the increase in supply....this will allow more brilliant people to pursue their dream of becoming a doctor....
Honey, you need to quit eating the mushrooms.
It costs a lot of money to train doctors. Adding more students does not lower the cost. On the contrary, it raises it.
Why would schools expand to accomodate students who will go on to underpaid careers?
You really need to get a clue about basic econ before you post again and sound like a complete drone. I'd suggest Sowell's Basic Economics for starters.
The top 1% of the country who got Bush tax cuts should pay for this. Fair is fair. They got, now they pay.
God bless America.
we have plenty of very smart people here....they just don't have the money to pay several hundred thousand for the degree....med schools have been purposely limited, to keep the demand high for docs, so that their pay can stay high....and the school itself can charge more....
well this short sighted plan of theirs is getting ready to burst, with all the boomers hitting retirement and in need of greater health care....
they need to expand med schools, and add new ones....this will bring the cost of schooling down, due to the increase in supply....this will allow more brilliant people to pursue their dream of becoming a doctor....
Honey, you need to quit eating the mushrooms.
It costs a lot of money to train doctors. Adding more students does not lower the cost. On the contrary, it raises it.
Why would schools expand to accomodate students who will go on to underpaid careers?
You really need to get a clue about basic econ before you post again and sound like a complete drone. I'd suggest Sowell's Basic Economics for starters.
Yes Rabbi, those poor impoverished Doctors will be flocking to Taco Bell for employment
[
ye of little faith! we are the greatest country in the world, we can increase doctors without making them lousy doctors....the private sector can do such...
where there is demand, there will be supply....because there is MONEY TO BE MADE.....
if health care does not fit in to a capitalistic widget fashion, then MAYBE it doesn't belong there and needs to be made a gvt run program because it doesn't fit in to capitalism and our market supporting capitalism?
it either runs like a business or it doesn't.
[
ye of little faith! we are the greatest country in the world, we can increase doctors without making them lousy doctors....the private sector can do such...
where there is demand, there will be supply....because there is MONEY TO BE MADE.....
if health care does not fit in to a capitalistic widget fashion, then MAYBE it doesn't belong there and needs to be made a gvt run program because it doesn't fit in to capitalism and our market supporting capitalism?
it either runs like a business or it doesn't.
Government run health care is not run like a business. Such money to be made does not attract people who wish to be Real Doctors.
You are the one who needs to learn math:Do you even know exactly how many people in this country are in the top 1%?
Here's a little clue for you. Only 5% of this entire population make more than 250K per year. Now the top 1% income is probably less than 1% of this entire nation.
If you consider the fact that health care would consist of less than half of the federal budget, then yes, it would be reasonable to conclude that the whole thing could be paid for by the richest 1% of the population. Not that I'm advocating that, but it's possible.The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
Source
Or less, and that 1% (or less) is a very volatile group, as California particularly, but also New Jersey and New York have found out, when they consider themselves greatly overtaxed.The top 1% of the country who got Bush tax cuts should pay for this. Fair is fair. They got, now they pay.
God bless America.
Do you even know exactly how many people in this country are in the top 1%?
Here's a little clue for you. Only 5% of this entire population make more than 250K per year. Now the top 1% income is probably less than 1% of this entire nation.
And you actually believe that these few people will be able to pay for the other 99%.
Did you make it through 3rd grade math?
the bill had funding to increase medical schools and more grants for doctors....and i believe more money for hospitals as well, if memory serves me!Only if the supply of doctors, nurses, medical equipment, etc. increases along with supply.
As that is not the case when government takes over health care. Providers and technology becomes scarcer over time, until long wait times "ration" care so that those who are often in most need of it die while waiting.
AND i agree, unless doctors, nurses, technicians, med schools, hospitals increase, we will have a huge problem....
but supply will increase Bod, if the demand increases....it could take a blip or 2 to get us there with supply, but it will happen....
And what is that BILL exactly? It portends that the Government will pay for job skills, as long as those participating sign their lives away, and become slaves to the Government in that field with such a mandate.
And that is what will happen in this case.
It's wrong.
But there's significant overlap between the irresponsible and the "sick and the accident prone":whether you are responsible or not responsible, you pay for the unhealthy, when you have group health insurance....
it is not the responsible that pays for the irresponsible....because many that are irresponsible and do not take risks, never neeed the health care.... the sick and the accident prone medical services are paid for by the others in the group that are not sick or that did not get in an accident....
Of course there is overlap. I'm saying that, in general, the mandate will force the more responsible / more healthy / more poor (can't afford insurance) to pay for insurance they don't need, which will benefit the less responsible, on average. They aren't all irresponsible; nothing of the sort. Nor are all of the healthy people responsible; however, I'm talking about averages.Untreated alcohol problems waste an estimated $184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths.
Harwood, H. Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods, and Data. Report prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2000.
Of course. So if the mandate is determined unconstitutional then the bill will be struck down. I'm not disagreeing with that, but that wasn't the argument I was making; I was making an ethical argument (there are better solutions than the mandate) not a legal argument.if one thing is deemed unconstitutional about it, then the entire bill would be unconstitutional.
Many Democrats are arguing that an insurance mandate is necessary so that everyone will be forced to get health insurance. This is for the sake of cost sharing; nowadays, for instance, many consumers are looking to tighten their belts and find savings everywhere they can. One bet many poor healthy people have made is to not get health insurance because they won't need it enough to justify the cost. Insurance companies lose many of their healthy subscribers, so they lose profit; as a result, those who are too sick remain on the plan, but for the company to offset its losses, it has to increase premiums. This is probably what caused the recent 39% premium increase Anthem imposed in California (statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=346&cat=6&rgn=6). A mandate will prevent the possibility of this happening in the future; people will have to get insurance even if it would not be economically rational, and insurance companies get more profit.
I have two main disagreements with this:
- Healthy people should not have to pay for sick people directly because sickness is often caused by poor lifestyle behaviors. If some people make poor decisions about their health, others (the healthy who would be forced to get insurance for cost-sharing) should not be forced to pay for it. Call me heartless, but I think if you eat so much that you're 300 pounds and need coronary bypass surgery or something, you should be the one to pay for it. It's basic personal responsibility.
- The government has no imperative to force citizens to buy something simply so that an industry can make more profit. Without the mandate, the people in need will disproportionately desire health insurance more - but that's how it is for every single other good and service the market provides. It's not unfair to the companies, they're voluntarily providing a service (hopefully) and others are voluntarily choosing to purchase that service or not.
Firstly, the healthy should not have to pay for those who make bad decisions and make themselves sick or require expensive surgery or drugs. Of course, there are many ailments which are not caused by negligence, but many are. For instance, eating at McDonalds every other day, or taking the elevator up to the 2nd floor, or using a motorized lawn mower you ride on, or not exercising, etc. Recent advances in technology and manufacturing have increased our ability to stay inactive or to buy cheap, unhealthy goods. You can see the effects of thsese things today:
Obesity:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/USObesityRate1960-2004.gif
2/3 of all Americans are overweight.
1/3 of all Americans are obese.
($1425 per person * ~300 million people = $427,500 million, or $427.5 billion)American Health Rankings said:In 2018, the cost of obesity at a national level is projected to be $1,425 per person. Source: americashealthrankings.org/2009/spotlight/cost.aspx"
Diabetes:
MedicineNet said:If nothing is done, the number of Americans with diabetes will nearly double in the next 25 years and spending on the disease will nearly triple, a new study shows. ... By 2034, as many as 44 million Americans will have diabetes, up from 23 million today, according to the new projections, published in the November issue of the American Diabetes Association journal Diabetes Care.
The cost of caring for diabetes patients is projected to rise from $113 billion to $336 annually, before adjusting for inflation.
Source: medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=108138
Medical Journal Source:care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/12/2225.full
Alcoholism:
CDC said:Source: cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
- Percent of adults who were current regular drinkers (at least 12 drinks in the past year): 50
- Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 13,050
- Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 22,073
The bottom line is that poor lifestyle choices are a significant cause of much of our extravagant health care spending. These poor choices should not be subsidized by unrelated third-parties (the healthy) - it creates a moral hazard. People are more likely to make bad decisions if they know others would pay for potential consequences.
Secondly, even if the lack of a mandate gives a company greater cost pressures, that's no reason to interfere with the market simply for the sake of providing the company more profit. We don't force corporations to operate at a loss; why should we force some consumers to operate at a loss (be forced to buy insurance)? This would simply be a giveaway to the insurance companies. They're already making billions of dollars in profits; why should the government interfere simply to give them more, hurting healthy citizens in the process?
Of course, there is one caveat applicable to both of these, which is that some sicknesses are not caused by risky behaviors. It would be quite difficult to fairly and consistently separate those responsible, and given that reducing costs is one of the main reasons for health reform, I don't see a solution, other than the following:
There is also the idea that, whether or not one is responsible for one's ailment, the state nevertheless has a duty to help out financially. While this may have philosophical merit, I don't think it's workable here, given that personal freedom is supposed to be one of the main principles of the country, and that cost control is absolutely necessary.
One last argument for the mandate is that some will buy health insurance only when they get sick, decreasing the insurance industry's profits if they decide to carry you. A possible counter is that the firms may be free to deny your insurance application, which would incentivise getting insurance before you need it, for the sake of cost-sharing among the healthy.
What do you think?
