The Government and Universal Healthcare

[editec]

That 45% or more that government provides along with the managed care and third party payors is what's driven health care up, not free markets.

I actually mostly agree with that premise, JR.

Now the fact that the government took on responsibility for paying for millions of us has GOT to be causing an increase in costs because that is one of those market forces that simple exists.

Additionally better HC (thanks to changes in medicine) are driving up costs.

Additionally the fact that Americans are getting older, is ALSO driving up the cost of health care, too.

I can go to a free market Doctor and pay $50 office visits, I can go to nurse practitioner clinics on nights and weekends for $40, the shots and tests are anywhere from $5 for a blood glucose test to $40 for more elaborate tests and shots, my hospital is covered for $70 a month, I can get my blood work done at a free market lab for $10-$50 so the free market clearly is very competitive. The free market is like any other, they strive to provide the best for the least cost where government payments give incentives to charge the most or any other type program where the consumer isn't responsible for the cost.

Here I'm afraid we have to disagree somewhat.

HC purchasing decisions is NOT like purchasing decisions in other markets.

Substitution or deciding that you can do without is not really something most people can do when it comes to HC.

And when you go into a store to buy most products, the salesman isn't the guy telling you what you MUST have, either. OTOH, you doctor most definitely IS the guy deciding what services you'll be buying, true?

Micro Economist after micro-economist has proven this to the satisfaction of everyone who studies the business of health care. My MBA was specialized in the BUSINESS of health care, so about this subject I know a little of what I speak.

Now that is NOT to say that market forces do not ALSO effect the cost of HC, but buying an apendectomy is not very much like deciding what TV to buy or what car to buy.

 

[DiamondDave]

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

What happens is that you do what you can... instead of thinking that it is someone else's responsibility

In other words 99% of the population dies the first time they have a serious illness.

Good plan!

100% of the population eventually dies

And since when does 99& of the population not have insurance or does not have the ability to purchase insurance?

Nice leap

 

[johnrocks]

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

What happens is that you do what you can... instead of thinking that it is someone else's responsibility

In other words 99% of the population dies the first time they have a serious illness.

Good plan!

No, the few percentage that won't act responsibility can either get with private charities or die. The few that are uninsurable can still get private charity or even good State and/or local government assistance. Did you know that the Catholic Church has a health plan for people, other organizations do also and that would expand if government would get out of the way. 99% of the people didn't "die off" prior to all this government intervention, that's reaching like a mo fo, friend.

 

[johnrocks]

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

High Deductible health insurance. A 50 year old male can get a Blue Cross policy that provides 5 million in lifetime protection with $5000 yearly out of pocket for $71 a month in my zip code. There's not a hospital in America that won't work with you if not waive that $5000 if they get the other $500000 from your stay intheir fine facility from cancer,heart attacks,accidents etc.

If the hospital waves your deductable, your insurance company will NOT pay the bulk of the bill.

Of course they can and often do end up not collecting that money, but that is a different issue entirely.

Perhaps not waive however they will work out a plan if they've gotten all but the $5000 or so out of pocket.

 

[Meister]

Could you tell me just how much your universal healthcare is going to cost? Can you tell me if i'm going to be forced to pay through taxes for this socialist venture? If I am going to be forced to pay, could you tell me how much? Also, will you guarantee that these costs are fixed, and won't be going up as we fail in this venture? I just want to know because I will be paying for my own insurance, also. I need to know how much my finacial freedom is going to suffer, because of your so called worthy cause.

If you've have read my posts you would know that I am not advocating any one particular system but the concept in general. First, I would take umberage with characterization as a socialist system, but alas that is just symantics. Second, because there is no system designed or even studied, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, your specific questions as to cost are moot with the exception that would be a given, a national healthcare system would be more cost effective and cheaper than our current "system." As to whether or not costs will be fixed, of course they won't be. No costs in any system are fixed. This question is ridiculous in its very premise. Yes, you would be forced to pay, at least partially, for this system, without universal shared costs it really wouldn't be a universal health system would it?

There was not a rediculous question in my prior post. If your advocating that our government provide universal, or your national healthcare, these are all prudent questions to be asked. Our government screws up everything it gets it's greedy hands on...except our Military. They are not worried if it's cost effective, there is little to no oversight of the proceeds through more taxes. I pay enough taxes now, I really can't afford anymore ongoing add ons as we go. I see our government spending as it stands now with wasting billions of dollars of our hard earned dollars.Our government hasn't a clue on how to run a company properly of this magnatude. If you believe that..then I'm wasting my time. Finally, our government was never set up to be the nanny state that the politicians wants it to be. This is a no brainer
There are alternatives in the private sector with the help of our government...without raising taxes. I've stated it before....our government is part of the solution, it isn't the solution.

 

[DiveCon]

Someone already does decide if you get the care you need...some clerk at the insurance company.

My father, on medicare, had no issues with getting the treatment he needed so that kills that argument.

Do veterans have a problem with clerks at the VHA deciding what care they get or do the doctors decide?

In all matters of health, the care should be decided by the doctor and the patient...seems easy enough to make that part of any healthcare system. Sure, some doctors will scam the system but thems the breaks.

yeah, no different from the private insurance coverage
there are things medicare DOESNT cover
figures you would be ignorant of the facts yet again

 

[johnrocks]

That 45% or more that government provides along with the managed care and third party payors is what's driven health care up, not free markets.

I actually mostly agree with that premise, JR.

Now the fact that the government took on responsibility for paying for millions of us has GOT to be causing an increase in costs because that is one of those market forces that simple exists.

Additionally better HC (thanks to changes in medicine) are driving up costs.

Additionally the fact that Americans are getting older, is ALSO driving up the cost of health care, too.

I can go to a free market Doctor and pay $50 office visits, I can go to nurse practitioner clinics on nights and weekends for $40, the shots and tests are anywhere from $5 for a blood glucose test to $40 for more elaborate tests and shots, my hospital is covered for $70 a month, I can get my blood work done at a free market lab for $10-$50 so the free market clearly is very competitive. The free market is like any other, they strive to provide the best for the least cost where government payments give incentives to charge the most or any other type program where the consumer isn't responsible for the cost.

Here I'm afraid we have to disagree somewhat.

HC purchasing decisions is NOT like purchasing decisions in other markets.

Substitution or deciding that you can do without is not really something most people can do when it comes to HC.

And when you go into a store to buy most products, the salesman isn't the guy telling you what you MUST have, either. OTOH, you doctor most definitely IS the guy deciding what services you'll be buying, true?

Micro Economist after micro-economist has proven this to the satisfaction of everyone who studies the business of health care. My MBA was specialized in the BUSINESS of health care, so about this subject I know a little of what I speak.

Now that is NOT to say that market forces do not ALSO effect the cost of HC, but buying an apendectomy is not very much like deciding what TV to buy or what car to buy.

I'm glad to meet someone who knows a bit about this subject having gotten my Degree in Economics and being an owner of an insurance agency that specialized in Senior products such as Medicare Supplements, I am now a "one man show" since I am my 87 year old Mom's primary caregiver and don't want her in a nursing home. I hope to have some lively yet civil discussions in the future.

 

[smb15]

Well, since YOU said it, that CERTAINLY makes it so. God forbid you should go to any trouble PROVE that I'm wrong, since all that's really required is for you to tell me I'm paranoid and that it's already been brilliantly done . . . somewhere that you can't be bothered to mention, let alone describe.

When I said use your head for something other than separating your ears, I wasn't actually referring to using it as a wind tunnel.

Dude, do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? Whether or not something should be considered part of the public accomodation is an OPINION. I have backed up my OPINION with valid reasons why I think the HEALTHCARE SYSTEM should be part of the public arena. NOT an INDIVIDUALS healthcare. This point was clear. My reasons are sound, your reasons a blah blah blah (insert talking point hear) blah blah blah.
Again I would ask you to use your head for somthing other than a soundbite trampoline.

Democratic process? Would that be where politicians rush legislation through at light-speed in order to avoid letting anyone read it, let alone debate it? Or would that be where we already exclude lunatics from being able to vote, which is really all he's suggesting in your case, anyway?

By the way, if our points are so "ridiculous and unfounded", why is it that you're squirming like a worm in hot ashes to get away from ever having to answer them?

Again...I spoke to this "point" in a previous post. Please read and head. As far as "squirming like a worm" the only one I see squirming is you. It's repetitive but entertaining.

 

[smb15]

There was not a rediculous question in my prior post. If your advocating that our government provide universal, or your national healthcare, these are all prudent questions to be asked. Our government screws up everything it gets it's greedy hands on...except our Military. They are not worried if it's cost effective, there is little to no oversight of the proceeds through more taxes. I pay enough taxes now, I really can't afford anymore ongoing add ons as we go. I see our government spending as it stands now with wasting billions of dollars of our hard earned dollars.Our government hasn't a clue on how to run a company properly of this magnatude. If you believe that..then I'm wasting my time. Finally, our government was never set up to be the nanny state that the politicians wants it to be. This is a no brainer
There are alternatives in the private sector with the help of our government...without raising taxes. I've stated it before....our government is part of the solution, it isn't the solution.

The notion that costs can be fixed in any system to perpetuity or at least until you die and are not paying taxes anymore is RIDICULOUS. As to your other questions about cost those are all valid questions. This is something, as I have stated in previous posts, that needs to be a consideration when studying, debating and arriving at the best plan. I cannot answer this question now because there is NO PLAN as of yet. That is point I am making. As far as the government not being able to run something this massive, thats just nonsense. The government is by far and away the best equiped to handle such a massive project. That being said, I am, as I have stated previously, open to a third party non-profit NGO running the system.

 

[Meister]

There was not a rediculous question in my prior post. If your advocating that our government provide universal, or your national healthcare, these are all prudent questions to be asked. Our government screws up everything it gets it's greedy hands on...except our Military. They are not worried if it's cost effective, there is little to no oversight of the proceeds through more taxes. I pay enough taxes now, I really can't afford anymore ongoing add ons as we go. I see our government spending as it stands now with wasting billions of dollars of our hard earned dollars.Our government hasn't a clue on how to run a company properly of this magnatude. If you believe that..then I'm wasting my time. Finally, our government was never set up to be the nanny state that the politicians wants it to be. This is a no brainer
There are alternatives in the private sector with the help of our government...without raising taxes. I've stated it before....our government is part of the solution, it isn't the solution.

The notion that costs can be fixed in any system to perpetuity or at least until you die and are not paying taxes anymore is RIDICULOUS. As to your other questions about cost those are all valid questions. This is something, as I have stated in previous posts, that needs to be a consideration when studying, debating and arriving at the best plan. I cannot answer this question now because there is NO PLAN as of yet. That is point I am making. As far as the government not being able to run something this massive, thats just nonsense. The government is by far and away the best equiped to handle such a massive project. That being said, I am, as I have stated previously, open to a third party non-profit NGO running the system.

Are you talking about the same government that has raided social security on the no payback plan? Is this the same government that has screwed up medicare, and medicaid? Is this the same government that has screwed up the welfare program??? Is this the same government that has set us back in energy independence? I don't think that a bunch of lawyers are up for the task of running a trillion dollar industry proficiently. This is the same government who has done studies, come up with a cost, pass it in congress, and the senate, have it signed by the president. Then it ended up triple the cost. Now this is reality...not "pie in the sky."

 

[Yukon]

Virtually every country in the world has a universal health care system. The entirety of Europe offers health care to its citizens as a right that they earn through their payment of taxes. Americans get nothing for their tax dollars except the money to fight needless wars of convenience on behalf of Israel’ which is6,000 miles from America's shores.

The thing about getting health care in return for your tax dollars is that you will not only get something for your money, but American companies would no longer have to pay large contributions toward their employees’ health care. That alone would assist cash strapped companies to become more competitive in a global market, because after all, workers abroad have universal health care. In the failed American system, companies foot that bill and because of that they play on an uneven playing field from the start. This is not rocket science, is it?

 

[Meister]

Virtually every country in the world has a universal health care system. The entirety of Europe offers health care to its citizens as a right that they earn through their payment of taxes. Americans get nothing for their tax dollars except the money to fight needless wars of convenience on behalf of Israel’ which is6,000 miles from America's shores.

The thing about getting health care in return for your tax dollars is that you will not only get something for your money, but American companies would no longer have to pay large contributions toward their employees’ health care. That alone would assist cash strapped companies to become more competitive in a global market, because after all, workers abroad have universal health care. In the failed American system, companies foot that bill and because of that they play on an uneven playing field from the start. This is not rocket science, is it?

Well, now I see why you have negative reps going on, Yukon. The quality of universal healthcare is so good in "those" other countries drive them to come over here to get our private healthcare, and are proud to pay the cost. Canada's healthcare is doing so well that private clinics are starting to pop up everywhere. Along with others coming across the border to recieve our expensive healthcare. Why don't you do a little research, and find out just what it costs the average family in taxes for universal health...not to mention how much federal tax is on a gallon of gas over there. Apparently, it is rocket science to you.

 

[Chris]

Virtually every country in the world has a universal health care system. The entirety of Europe offers health care to its citizens as a right that they earn through their payment of taxes. Americans get nothing for their tax dollars except the money to fight needless wars of convenience on behalf of Israel’ which is6,000 miles from America's shores.

The thing about getting health care in return for your tax dollars is that you will not only get something for your money, but American companies would no longer have to pay large contributions toward their employees’ health care. That alone would assist cash strapped companies to become more competitive in a global market, because after all, workers abroad have universal health care. In the failed American system, companies foot that bill and because of that they play on an uneven playing field from the start. This is not rocket science, is it?

Well, now I see why you have negative reps going on, Yukon. The quality of universal healthcare is so good in "those" other countries drive them to come over here to get our private healthcare, and are proud to pay the cost. Canada's healthcare is doing so well that private clinics are starting to pop up everywhere. Along with others coming across the border to recieve our expensive healthcare. Why don't you do a little research, and find out just what it costs the average family in taxes for universal health...not to mention how much federal tax is on a gallon of gas over there. Apparently, it is rocket science to you.

That's why seniors are taking buses to Canada and Mexico to buy their drugs.

 

[DiveCon]

Virtually every country in the world has a universal health care system. The entirety of Europe offers health care to its citizens as a right that they earn through their payment of taxes. Americans get nothing for their tax dollars except the money to fight needless wars of convenience on behalf of Israel’ which is6,000 miles from America's shores.

The thing about getting health care in return for your tax dollars is that you will not only get something for your money, but American companies would no longer have to pay large contributions toward their employees’ health care. That alone would assist cash strapped companies to become more competitive in a global market, because after all, workers abroad have universal health care. In the failed American system, companies foot that bill and because of that they play on an uneven playing field from the start. This is not rocket science, is it?

Well, now I see why you have negative reps going on, Yukon. The quality of universal healthcare is so good in "those" other countries drive them to come over here to get our private healthcare, and are proud to pay the cost. Canada's healthcare is doing so well that private clinics are starting to pop up everywhere. Along with others coming across the border to recieve our expensive healthcare. Why don't you do a little research, and find out just what it costs the average family in taxes for universal health...not to mention how much federal tax is on a gallon of gas over there. Apparently, it is rocket science to you.

That's why seniors are taking buses to Canada and Mexico to buy their drugs.

and ONLY the drugs
because Canadian tax dollars are subsidizing them
how much longer do you think that will be allowed?

 

[Meister]

Virtually every country in the world has a universal health care system. The entirety of Europe offers health care to its citizens as a right that they earn through their payment of taxes. Americans get nothing for their tax dollars except the money to fight needless wars of convenience on behalf of Israel’ which is6,000 miles from America's shores.

The thing about getting health care in return for your tax dollars is that you will not only get something for your money, but American companies would no longer have to pay large contributions toward their employees’ health care. That alone would assist cash strapped companies to become more competitive in a global market, because after all, workers abroad have universal health care. In the failed American system, companies foot that bill and because of that they play on an uneven playing field from the start. This is not rocket science, is it?

Well, now I see why you have negative reps going on, Yukon. The quality of universal healthcare is so good in "those" other countries drive them to come over here to get our private healthcare, and are proud to pay the cost. Canada's healthcare is doing so well that private clinics are starting to pop up everywhere. Along with others coming across the border to recieve our expensive healthcare. Why don't you do a little research, and find out just what it costs the average family in taxes for universal health...not to mention how much federal tax is on a gallon of gas over there. Apparently, it is rocket science to you.

That's why seniors are taking buses to Canada and Mexico to buy their drugs.

Oh, my bad...I thought we were talking about universal healthcare not drug companies. Damn...I sure did screw this one up. Thanks for straighrtening me out....chris. Geeze, I feel sorry for him.

 

[johnrocks]

Drugs are high because of government too. I talked to a Veterinarian once and he said some drugs used with animals are the same as in humans yet cost a pittance of our drugs.

 

[DiveCon]

Drugs are high because of government too. I talked to a Veterinarian once and he said some drugs used with animals are the same as in humans yet cost a pittance of our drugs.

yup, i've heard that as well

 

[auditor0007]

That 45% or more that government provides along with the managed care and third party payors is what's driven health care up, not free markets. I can go to a free market Doctor and pay $50 office visits, I can go to nurse practitioner clinics on nights and weekends for $40, the shots and tests are anywhere from $5 for a blood glucose test to $40 for more elaborate tests and shots, my hospital is covered for $70 a month, I can get my blood work done at a free market lab for $10-$50 so the free market clearly is very competitive. The free market is like any other, they strive to provide the best for the least cost where government payments give incentives to charge the most or any other type program where the consumer isn't responsible for the cost.

Well, it isn't exactly free market, now is it? You pay the insurance company so that they will dictate what your doctor and hospital can charge you. Of course, the insurance company only accepts those who are healthy to begin with, so that insurance is only good for certain people, not all people. That is why if you don't have insurance, they charge double what the insurance company pays them for the same exact service.

On top of that, the average cost for healthcare for those on Medicare/Medicaid tend to be higher than everyone else because those people are either retired (older), and the older we get the more likely we are to be sick, or poor and disabled, which also leads to greater healthcare costs.

The only reason you can get such good rates is because you are younger and healthy. Once those two factors change, the cost goes up dramatically. If you now pay $3600 per year for all of your health insurance and out of pocket health expenses, and we know the average cost is $7200 per year, then someone else is paying the rest of it. The other thing you can be certain of is that what you are paying today is only going to go up as you get older. You are going to pay much more whether you like it or not.

Here's another problem with private healthcare. If we compare healthcare to any other business, we would have to assume that by being competitive, the stronger healthcare providers will stay in business and force the weaker ones out. That's fine in normal markets, but healthcare is not a normal market. People must have access to healthcare. In rural areas, they still need hospitals, and much of the same equipment as they need in urban areas. They have the same basic costs, but less customers to draw from, yet they must be kept afloat because we have a responsibility to make certain that adequate healthcare is available. Or maybe you are suggesting that those who live in rural areas should move to urban areas so they can get adequate healthcare. I'm not suggesting these people should get free healthcare, but they should not be in a position of having to pay double what everyone else does because of where they live.

 

[johnrocks]

That 45% or more that government provides along with the managed care and third party payors is what's driven health care up, not free markets. I can go to a free market Doctor and pay $50 office visits, I can go to nurse practitioner clinics on nights and weekends for $40, the shots and tests are anywhere from $5 for a blood glucose test to $40 for more elaborate tests and shots, my hospital is covered for $70 a month, I can get my blood work done at a free market lab for $10-$50 so the free market clearly is very competitive. The free market is like any other, they strive to provide the best for the least cost where government payments give incentives to charge the most or any other type program where the consumer isn't responsible for the cost.

Well, it isn't exactly free market, now is it? You pay the insurance company so that they will dictate what your doctor and hospital can charge you. Of course, the insurance company only accepts those who are healthy to begin with, so that insurance is only good for certain people, not all people. That is why if you don't have insurance, they charge double what the insurance company pays them for the same exact service.

On top of that, the average cost for healthcare for those on Medicare/Medicaid tend to be higher than everyone else because those people are either retired (older), and the older we get the more likely we are to be sick, or poor and disabled, which also leads to greater healthcare costs.

The only reason you can get such good rates is because you are younger and healthy. Once those two factors change, the cost goes up dramatically. If you now pay $3600 per year for all of your health insurance and out of pocket health expenses, and we know the average cost is $7200 per year, then someone else is paying the rest of it. The other thing you can be certain of is that what you are paying today is only going to go up as you get older. You are going to pay much more whether you like it or not.

Here's another problem with private healthcare. If we compare healthcare to any other business, we would have to assume that by being competitive, the stronger healthcare providers will stay in business and force the weaker ones out. That's fine in normal markets, but healthcare is not a normal market. People must have access to healthcare. In rural areas, they still need hospitals, and much of the same equipment as they need in urban areas. They have the same basic costs, but less customers to draw from, yet they must be kept afloat because we have a responsibility to make certain that adequate healthcare is available. Or maybe you are suggesting that those who live in rural areas should move to urban areas so they can get adequate healthcare. I'm not suggesting these people should get free healthcare, but they should not be in a position of having to pay double what everyone else does because of where they live.

That $50 office visit is there for the 90 year old or the 10 year old but yes it's free market since your not forced to buy it and you have options, unlike government imposed programs, elderly are forced onto Medicare so there is no private healthcare but a 64 year old male can get a five million dollar plan to cover the major illnesses and accidents for $218 a month in my zip code, imagine how much more inexpensive it would be without all the government regulations and mandates.

Health care when treated like any other commodity was relatively inexpensive, in 1965, it was 5% of GDP,that was the year Medicare was passed where it was for years but by the time the HMO Act of 1971 was passed, it has increased to 10%, that law mandated most employers to have employee insurance.

 

[auditor0007]

Could you tell me just how much your universal healthcare is going to cost? Can you tell me if i'm going to be forced to pay through taxes for this socialist venture? If I am going to be forced to pay, could you tell me how much? Also, will you guarantee that these costs are fixed, and won't be going up as we fail in this venture? I just want to know because I will be paying for my own insurance, also. I need to know how much my finacial freedom is going to suffer, because of your so called worthy cause.

If you've have read my posts you would know that I am not advocating any one particular system but the concept in general. First, I would take umberage with characterization as a socialist system, but alas that is just symantics. Second, because there is no system designed or even studied, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, your specific questions as to cost are moot with the exception that would be a given, a national healthcare system would be more cost effective and cheaper than our current "system." As to whether or not costs will be fixed, of course they won't be. No costs in any system are fixed. This question is ridiculous in its very premise. Yes, you would be forced to pay, at least partially, for this system, without universal shared costs it really wouldn't be a universal health system would it?

The question I must ask anyone who is staunchly against a national healthcare plan is this; should we get rid of Medicare? Almost every retiree in America relies on it and it is government run. All of us will rely on Medicare at some point, unless we die before retirement age, so who here wants to get rid of it and pay their own way for healthcare throught their retirement years?

When people object to national healthcare, they almost always use the argument that it will cost more than what they currently have. My question is how could it cost more when we already pay double what anyone else pays throughout the rest of the world? Based on our current system and all of its failures, we know that costs under this system will continue to outpace inflation, which will result in a greater portion of everyone's budget going toward healthcare.

Again, my argument isn't so much for national healthcare for the reason of fairness or that it will provide better service. It is a matter of cost and reducing those costs. If national healthcare will reduce the overall cost, then we can take the extra savings a put those toward private insurance for those who choose to do so. In a combined system of government and private insurance, the private insurance becomes much cheaper because only certain things need be covered under that insurance.