Why are people afraid of socialized healthcare?

[Bern80]

when i say cars are a 1 time expenditure, i stated that the cost the purchase a car is a set price. say $15,000. now yes there is maintenances on a car, but there are incremental costs. this still does not apply to health care. in health care we cant simply buy a policy for $15,000 and then pay small maintenances on our body. it also is a dumb argument because if your car breaks down you can simply purchase another one and throw the old one away. can you do this with your body? think of it this way. when you pay health care premium, in order to receive that care that coincides with that premium, you have to continue to pay that premium indefinitely. (as in forever!) but if you have a car, the purchase price is a 1 time cost, with low day to day costs. but you still dont see that a car is a luxury item.

No I don't. The definintion of luxury item is something that is a none necessity. Well that simple isn't true for most people where cars are concerned. For all practical intents you have to have one. And even though this is the case I dont' expect government owes me a car. It is simply a cost of life, just like your health is. Your body is a machine just like a car is a machine. That the purchase of a car is a one time cost isn't even true. Most people don't pay for their cars all at once. They finance them on a monthly basis over years, just like pay a monthly premium to own an insurance policy.

Look common obviously we both want the same thing. We just disagree on how to get there. But if you want to solve this problem it's going to require some out of the box thinking. You can not expect things to change by continuing to do things the way you did before, you know, the way that isn't working now. The reason health care is so expensive is BECAUSE there is so much government involved in it already. The reason health care is so expensive is because we have become so accustomed to an insurance model that allowed people to take less interest in how there money is spent. That is what you have to see. That the more directly your health impacts you financially the more likely you are to make good decisins where your health is concerned. The more directly you can control where your health care money goes the more likely the costs of goods and service will go down. Except the liberal way is exactly the opposite. Give the money to someone else, let them handle the logisitics. It shouldn't be any wonder why health care costs are so high. The consumer has no power. They have no choice in what they want to pay in premiums or what those premiums cover, they have limited ability or incentive to shop for the best price. Unlike other private businesses, hospitals and doctor's aren't beholden to the customer so they have no incentive to improve efficiency and cut cost.

so with this statement how can you compare cars to health insurance? in order to drive you are required by the state to pass a license test and carry insurance. wow, did i just say that the state "requires" you to carry insurance? sounds like a mandate to me, and this is for your so called "necessity".

I have stated several times now why the two are analogous. Maybe you need to start obectively asking yourself these questions. Why does the state have the right to require you to purchase insurance. If you want to solve problems common, you have to willing to challenge some of your premises.

aha! this we where you are missing the point. the reason that that one person could afford $500 and the other only afford $150, is not simply a matter of choice, its a matter of finances. since one person makes more than another he can simply afford better quality things. same way as everyone can not afford the same house or same car. it comes down to affordability. my argument removes scenarios like this from ever happening. if everyone pays the same price for the same services, no one loses. everyone wins.

The problem is the things you are ignoring. You thought you had a gotcha by telling me it's an affordability issue. Then by the end of the paragraph you're telling we will cover everyone and everyone will pay the same thing. I asked you before, how are these people who could not pay for insurance before, miraculously going to be able pay now? There are always going to be people that can't afford insurance, that's what medicare and medicade should be for. To help those that truly can not help themselves. But there is no good reason, and plenty of bad ones, to lump everyone into this group for the sake of the few.

and i didnt ignore your causality argument, i stated that it is morally wrong to deny someone potentially life saving treatment because of the all mighty dollar. hence you put a value on human life. i never said that treatment or procedure should be free, you assumed that was my position because i said health care was a right. we tell all children they have a right to an education, but that education is paid for through taxes. its not technically free.

Personally yes there are certain life cliches shall we say that I challenge. One of them being that every human life is equal. The fact is they are not. Certain people are more valuable to society than others. That's a cold hard fact. However, I do not believe that value is necessarily related to the amount of money someone has.

 

[Common Sense]

No I don't. The definintion of luxury item is something that is a none necessity. Well that simple isn't true for most people where cars are concerned. For all practical intents you have to have one. And even though this is the case I dont' expect government owes me a car. It is simply a cost of life, just like your health is. Your body is a machine just like a car is a machine. That the purchase of a car is a one time cost isn't even true. Most people don't pay for their cars all at once. They finance them on a monthly basis over years, just like pay a monthly premium to own an insurance policy.

a car is still a luxury. whether you want to believe it or not. you do not require a car to perpetuate your life. air is a necessity, food is a necessity, shelter is a necessity. a car is not. i do have a car, but it is not necessary for me to exist. i can walk to work. i can ride a bicycle. i can take the bus. it may be inconvenient for me, but i can survive without one. even if you finance a car, it is still a one time cost. not whether that cost is paid for at once, or over a set amount of time is irrelevant, because this is a fixed cost. eventually your payment for that vehicle will cease and you will own it outright. at which time you can tell that vehicle and take the money from that sale and go purchase another vehicle. this is not anywhere close to what you can do with health care. you cant just get rid of an old body. you only have one and it is not replaceable. if health care were a fixed cost i could see your argument. you can not make a service such as health care a fixed cost.

Look common obviously we both want the same thing. We just disagree on how to get there. But if you want to solve this problem it's going to require some out of the box thinking. You can not expect things to change by continuing to do things the way you did before, you know, the way that isn't working now. The reason health care is so expensive is BECAUSE there is so much government involved in it already. The reason health care is so expensive is because we have become so accustomed to an insurance model that allowed people to take less interest in how there money is spent. That is what you have to see. That the more directly your health impacts you financially the more likely you are to make good decisins where your health is concerned. The more directly you can control where your health care money goes the more likely the costs of goods and service will go down. Except the liberal way is exactly the opposite. Give the money to someone else, let them handle the logisitics. It shouldn't be any wonder why health care costs are so high. The consumer has no power. They have no choice in what they want to pay in premiums or what those premiums cover, they have limited ability or incentive to shop for the best price. Unlike other private businesses, hospitals and doctor's aren't beholden to the customer so they have no incentive to improve efficiency and cut cost.

can you point me to a current insurance place that rewards a healthy living? i have tried to do some research, but have yet to come across a plan that monitors an individuals health and thus lowers your premium each year for staying healthy. as a matter of fact, we all know that insurance costs have risen over the past the decade on everyone. we as individuals can be directly involved in our health. I am one of those individuals. i exercise regularly, eat healthy and overall take care of my body. but this has not led to a reduction in my premiums. it has actually led to an increase. on a financial level, where is the incentive to continue this? what is your suggestion in how to get the consumer more power? simply stating the we remove any government intervention is not the solution. looks at what happened when we deregulated the banking industry. it directly led to the collapse of the financial system and led to the recession that we are in. government intervention and regulation is no the enemy here.

I have stated several times now why the two are analogous. Maybe you need to start obectively asking yourself these questions. Why does the state have the right to require you to purchase insurance. If you want to solve problems common, you have to willing to challenge some of your premises.

well i ask you, why does the state require you to have car insurance? the car insurance requirement actually does not protect you as the policy holder, it protects those whom you might harm as a result. (these are the minimum requirements) so by carrying the minimum requirement you are paying to essentially protect strangers; but not yourself. you dont have a problem with this idea, but you have a problem with them telling you to purchase a product to protect your own personal body? where is the sense in that? you have said many times a car is a necessity. well if its a necessity, then how can the government mandate you purchase a private product in order to own the necessity? the government doesnt issue car insurance, but they tell you if you want to drive you must buy it. you still use the car argument but its become invalid time and time again.

The problem is the things you are ignoring. You thought you had a gotcha by telling me it's an affordability issue. Then by the end of the paragraph you're telling we will cover everyone and everyone will pay the same thing. I asked you before, how are these people who could not pay for insurance before, miraculously going to be able pay now? There are always going to be people that can't afford insurance, that's what medicare and medicade should be for. To help those that truly can not help themselves. But there is no good reason, and plenty of bad ones, to lump everyone into this group for the sake of the few.

if we cover more people, economics say that they cost should decrease. with more people paying into the system costs should decline. because these same people who are taking from the system without paying will now be paying. thus the costs of these services will no longer be passed onto the paying customers such as you and I.

heres an easy math example.

if there are 10 people receiving treatment that costs $100 per person. the total cost of the treatment of $1,000. not if only 5 people are paying into the plan for services, each of those people are having to pay $200. but if we cover 9 out of 10, that cost drops from $200 per person to $111 per person. now i know its not exactly as simple as this in the, but its a good enough example of how covering more people can drive down costs. and you cant tell me that insurance companies wouldnt want to have 46 million new customers paying into the system instead of just taking.

now this does have to go hand in hand with forcing insurance companies and health care providers cut their costs as well.

Personally yes there are certain life cliches shall we say that I challenge. One of them being that every human life is equal. The fact is they are not. Certain people are more valuable to society than others. That's a cold hard fact. However, I do not believe that value is necessarily related to the amount of money someone has.

so who gets to decided who is more worth of living and dying? who gets to play "god." you, me, an administrator in a back room looking at statistics? why doesnt the individual get to decided if they live or die? how would you feel if some hospital administrator told you they weren't willing to pay for a potentially life saving procedure because they deemed your life wasnt valuable enough? is that morally right? ethically right?

i never compared someones value to society as a whole as part of this argument. an individual might be only valuable his his or her family, or his or her neighborhood, or just amongst their friends. but does that mean they are less valuable than say a CEO, or a governor, or a solider?

(the only group of people whos life is worth less than the rest of society are those who commit crimes against us, and thus go to prison. but its interesting tho, because prison health care systems provide better care than some private health care companies. and we pay for them through taxes as well)

 

[Bern80]

a car is still a luxury. whether you want to believe it or not. you do not require a car to perpetuate your life. air is a necessity, food is a necessity, shelter is a necessity. a car is not. i do have a car, but it is not necessary for me to exist. i can walk to work. i can ride a bicycle. i can take the bus. it may be inconvenient for me, but i can survive without one. even if you finance a car, it is still a one time cost. not whether that cost is paid for at once, or over a set amount of time is irrelevant, because this is a fixed cost. eventually your payment for that vehicle will cease and you will own it outright. at which time you can tell that vehicle and take the money from that sale and go purchase another vehicle. this is not anywhere close to what you can do with health care. you cant just get rid of an old body. you only have one and it is not replaceable. if health care were a fixed cost i could see your argument. you can not make a service such as health care a fixed cost.

Again if you are unable to challenge your premises than we aren't going to get any where. If you want to be blunt in terms of neccessary to just plain live, fine. But at some point a little reality has to enter the conversation. No I do not require a car to live. As far as efficiently managing to day to day life, yes a car is a necessity. And I'm not making this analogy for the heck of it. I am making it because I beleive if we treated health care more like car care we would all be better off for it.

And on some of this stuff you're just plain factually incorrect. A car is not a one time expenditure. Or is the definition of one time expenditure different in your world? To me a one time expenditure for something is a transaction that occurs once and once only. What is the definition in your world? Here in realityville no one is going to argue, giving that fact that most cars are financed over a period of time and the maintenance costs invlolved, that owning a car is a one time expense.

can you point me to a current insurance place that rewards a healthy living? i have tried to do some research, but have yet to come across a plan that monitors an individuals health and thus lowers your premium each year for staying healthy. as a matter of fact, we all know that insurance costs have risen over the past the decade on everyone. we as individuals can be directly involved in our health. I am one of those individuals. i exercise regularly, eat healthy and overall take care of my body. but this has not led to a reduction in my premiums. it has actually led to an increase. on a financial level, where is the incentive to continue this? what is your suggestion in how to get the consumer more power? simply stating the we remove any government intervention is not the solution. looks at what happened when we deregulated the banking industry. it directly led to the collapse of the financial system and led to the recession that we are in. government intervention and regulation is no the enemy here.

You give consumers power by giving them choices. And admittedly your fairly tale solution does that if you've set up as simplisitically as it seems. Everyone is cover for everything and presumably everyone can go wherever they want for treatment. That's more of a goal than a solution and one we both share. The problem is the way you have propossed to give people more coverage and more choices is logistically not going to work.

well i ask you, why does the state require you to have car insurance? the car insurance requirement actually does not protect you as the policy holder, it protects those whom you might harm as a result. (these are the minimum requirements) so by carrying the minimum requirement you are paying to essentially protect strangers; but not yourself. you dont have a problem with this idea, but you have a problem with them telling you to purchase a product to protect your own personal body? where is the sense in that? you have said many times a car is a necessity. well if its a necessity, then how can the government mandate you purchase a private product in order to own the necessity? the government doesnt issue car insurance, but they tell you if you want to drive you must buy it. you still use the car argument but its become invalid time and time again.

Then I assume you are oppossed to the health insurance mandate? As you so eloquently said, how can government make you buy something that is a necessity? I ask the same question of car insurance. I have never indicated that I agree with that law either. I don't know why you are arguing as if I do.

if we cover more people, economics say that they cost should decrease. with more people paying into the system costs should decline. because these same people who are taking from the system without paying will now be paying. thus the costs of these services will no longer be passed onto the paying customers such as you and I.

heres an easy math example.

if there are 10 people receiving treatment that costs $100 per person. the total cost of the treatment of $1,000. not if only 5 people are paying into the plan for services, each of those people are having to pay $200. but if we cover 9 out of 10, that cost drops from $200 per person to $111 per person. now i know its not exactly as simple as this in the, but its a good enough example of how covering more people can drive down costs. and you cant tell me that insurance companies wouldnt want to have 46 million new customers paying into the system instead of just taking.

now this does have to go hand in hand with forcing insurance companies and health care providers cut their costs as well.

The problem again is your only looking at the cost from one perspective. The consumer. You assume if everything is cheap for the consumer all the problems with the system just go away. What is going to happen when you decide government gets to dictate what every person in a specific industry can make? This is why I said a distinction between government running the system and being an insurance provider is pure sematics. If your way of making health care less expensive is going to be to legisalte how much people can make and what it costs you may as well make it a government run institution. I mean what's the difference really once you've gone that far? So if you're comfortable with our government and it's track record of effeciency (or lack of) and beauracracy running health care I am willing to bet any day of the week that it is you who will be sorry in the end.

so who gets to decided who is more worth of living and dying? who gets to play "god." you, me, an administrator in a back room looking at statistics? why doesnt the individual get to decided if they live or die? how would you feel if some hospital administrator told you they weren't willing to pay for a potentially life saving procedure because they deemed your life wasnt valuable enough? is that morally right? ethically right?

The best scenario is one that doesn't require the choice in the first place. Treat them both (assuming the resources are available to treat both. The reason I think your make believe scenario is a bit bogus is because there are a lot realistic solutions that can be explored. Insurance not paying for something is not a death sentence. It just means one party isn't going to pay for it. Find another party that will or you pay for it. Work out a payment plan with the hospital you would be surprised how willing hospitals are to deal when the money is coming directly from the user and they dont have to mess around with insurance companies.

That's another area to explore. How can we render insurance irrelevent, or at least less relevant. How can we tinker with the economics of the health care industry such that people can go in and pay a reasonable fee for a service. Again insurance companies are part of the reason those service cost so much because the provider is not having to deal with the finances of the customer thus there is no incentive to lower prices. Then we get pissed off at insurance companies who are basically saying 'fine, you're to lazy to shop? We'll do the shopping for you. We'll find out who's offering the lowest prices for services. We will call these places 'in network'.' Thus elminating choices for where you get treated.

 

[Common Sense]

Again if you are unable to challenge your premises than we aren't going to get any where. If you want to be blunt in terms of neccessary to just plain live, fine. But at some point a little reality has to enter the conversation. No I do not require a car to live. As far as efficiently managing to day to day life, yes a car is a necessity. And I'm not making this analogy for the heck of it. I am making it because I beleive if we treated health care more like car care we would all be better off for it.

the problem is a persons health and a car are not similar. this need a better analogy for me to agree with anything related to it. the simple fact is that not having a car does not affect someones life near the same as not having health insurance. this is something that you fail to see.

And on some of this stuff you're just plain factually incorrect. A car is not a one time expenditure. Or is the definition of one time expenditure different in your world? To me a one time expenditure for something is a transaction that occurs once and once only. What is the definition in your world? Here in realityville no one is going to argue, giving that fact that most cars are financed over a period of time and the maintenance costs invlolved, that owning a car is a one time expense.

yes a car is a one time expenditure. to purchase the product it has a set single cost that is determined by the manufacturer. and there are those that have the ability to pay for this in a single lump sum. maintenance, then become the choice of the consumer. he can choose to maintain the vehicle, or choose not too. if he chooses not to then he can simply discard the vehicle when he is done using. (now whether this is cost effective is irrelevant. but he has the ability to do so, he can choose to) its a choice. its not the best choice, but its still his choice.
this is not something you can do with the human body. once it starts to break down you can not simply discard it and purchase another, it has to be repaired.

You give consumers power by giving them choices. And admittedly your fairly tale solution does that if you've set up as simplisitically as it seems. Everyone is cover for everything and presumably everyone can go wherever they want for treatment. That's more of a goal than a solution and one we both share. The problem is the way you have propossed to give people more coverage and more choices is logistically not going to work.

i still fail to see how the consumer loses if all of his risk is taken out of the equation? i think of it this way. I am willing to pay a reasonable price for potential services. as long as i pay that price i should be able to go in and see my doctor or care provider when needed and receive those services. i could care less what the guy in the next room is receiving in the way of his services, as long as my premium covers my services. if we all took this attitude and every person paid a flat fee for services, then in theory everyone should receive the same care. no one become special in this model, but also no one is left out. as a whole the society benefits from increased health and reduced risk. you even agreed that is a great goal. how is paying a justifiable flat rate not a viable solution. just because i am now covered for all potential risks doesnt mean a the consumer im going to take the fear approach and overwhelm the system with frivolous claim. but what it does is give me peace of mind to know that if i develop cancer i will receive care. if i break my leg i will receive care. for all the "what ifs" i will receive care. it also gives me peace of mind to know that i can never go bankrupt because of an illness. now we can have a great discussion on exactly how much each individual should pay in the way of premiums, but having a flat fee across board helps to cover everyone, and within the current private insurance systems, allows the companies to still control their costs and services. they can even get together and determine the pricing for the overall system. if there needs to be a cost increase, you can uniformly increase everyone at a preset rate, thus spreading the risk amongst a greater number of people instead of on a small group.

Then I assume you are oppossed to the health insurance mandate? As you so eloquently said, how can government make you buy something that is a necessity? I ask the same question of car insurance. I have never indicated that I agree with that law either. I don't know why you are arguing as if I do.

i am actually not opposed to the mandate at all. as i currently already purchase health insurance through a private insurer, i dont feel that this will have a negative effect on my life. i am being told to purchase something which i already value and purchase by choice. the mandate will have no effect on me whatsoever.

The problem again is your only looking at the cost from one perspective. The consumer. You assume if everything is cheap for the consumer all the problems with the system just go away. What is going to happen when you decide government gets to dictate what every person in a specific industry can make? This is why I said a distinction between government running the system and being an insurance provider is pure sematics. If your way of making health care less expensive is going to be to legisalte how much people can make and what it costs you may as well make it a government run institution. I mean what's the difference really once you've gone that far? So if you're comfortable with our government and it's track record of effeciency (or lack of) and beauracracy running health care I am willing to bet any day of the week that it is you who will be sorry in the end.

i never stated that government should tell a private company how much to pay their employees. this should be decided by the individuals that run these companies. but it does need to be controlled and regulated to a point. you dont see doctors from all over the world who have government run health care systems flocking to the US because of higher salaries?

The best scenario is one that doesn't require the choice in the first place. Treat them both (assuming the resources are available to treat both. The reason I think your make believe scenario is a bit bogus is because there are a lot realistic solutions that can be explored. Insurance not paying for something is not a death sentence. It just means one party isn't going to pay for it. Find another party that will or you pay for it. Work out a payment plan with the hospital you would be surprised how willing hospitals are to deal when the money is coming directly from the user and they dont have to mess around with insurance companies.

this simply leads me back to my flat fee single payer plan. if the risk is gone and the cost is covered, then there is no need for ever denying care.

That's another area to explore. How can we render insurance irrelevent, or at least less relevant. How can we tinker with the economics of the health care industry such that people can go in and pay a reasonable fee for a service. Again insurance companies are part of the reason those service cost so much because the provider is not having to deal with the finances of the customer thus there is no incentive to lower prices. Then we get pissed off at insurance companies who are basically saying 'fine, you're to lazy to shop? We'll do the shopping for you. We'll find out who's offering the lowest prices for services. We will call these places 'in network'.' Thus elminating choices for where you get treated.

im not sure we could every make insurance irrelevant just because of the massive costs of certain procedure. you really cant bring down the real costs of a surgery. even if you broke it down to just labor costs and threw out the equipment and materials costs, it would still be extremely unaffordable for the average consumer.

i actually did shop for similar plans, and the problem is, between i different insurance companies, their plans vary so widely you cant even compare them.


for example:

30 year old male, los angeles, ca, non smoker
$25 Co pay, $0 annual deductible, $1500 out of pocket annual max, hospitalization $250

Kaiser HMO - $150 / month

the closest plans found:

Blue Shield PPO - $226 / month
$25 Co pay, $0 annual deductible, $6000 out of pocket annual max, hospitalization $500

Aetna doesnt even offer a plan with $0 deductible
but with a $35 copay - $3,500 deductible and 30% co insurance the rate is $176

why cant all the plans just be the same with same rate. we can look at historic health care costs over the last 10 years and figure out the average. what if it costs $175 / month to cover you for everything? would that be unreasonable? we are covering the costs of the actual services given, while at the same time covering more people. its a win for the insurance companies, and a win for the consumer.

 

[Bern80]

the problem is a persons health and a car are not similar. this need a better analogy for me to agree with anything related to it. the simple fact is that not having a car does not affect someones life near the same as not having health insurance. this is something that you fail to see.

yes a car is a one time expenditure. to purchase the product it has a set single cost that is determined by the manufacturer. and there are those that have the ability to pay for this in a single lump sum. maintenance, then become the choice of the consumer. he can choose to maintain the vehicle, or choose not too. if he chooses not to then he can simply discard the vehicle when he is done using. (now whether this is cost effective is irrelevant. but he has the ability to do so, he can choose to) its a choice. its not the best choice, but its still his choice.
this is not something you can do with the human body. once it starts to break down you can not simply discard it and purchase another, it has to be repaired.

How can you keep saying that with a straight face? Have you or anyone you know ever only put the purchase price into their car and never spent anything else on it? Get fucking real, please. What you are basically arguing is that a difference between the two is their disposibility. Sure that's somthing that makes them different. Unfortuantely it is not a relevant distinction. For all other practical intents and purposes they are the same. You have ownership of both and they both cost money to maintain.

i still fail to see how the consumer loses if all of his risk is taken out of the equation? i think of it this way. I am willing to pay a reasonable price for potential services. as long as i pay that price i should be able to go in and see my doctor or care provider when needed and receive those services. i could care less what the guy in the next room is receiving in the way of his services, as long as my premium covers my services. if we all took this attitude and every person paid a flat fee for services, then in theory everyone should receive the same care. no one become special in this model, but also no one is left out. as a whole the society benefits from increased health and reduced risk. you even agreed that is a great goal. how is paying a justifiable flat rate not a viable solution. just because i am now covered for all potential risks doesnt mean a the consumer im going to take the fear approach and overwhelm the system with frivolous claim. but what it does is give me peace of mind to know that if i develop cancer i will receive care. if i break my leg i will receive care. for all the "what ifs" i will receive care. it also gives me peace of mind to know that i can never go bankrupt because of an illness. now we can have a great discussion on exactly how much each individual should pay in the way of premiums, but having a flat fee across board helps to cover everyone, and within the current private insurance systems, allows the companies to still control their costs and services. they can even get together and determine the pricing for the overall system. if there needs to be a cost increase, you can uniformly increase everyone at a preset rate, thus spreading the risk amongst a greater number of people instead of on a small group.

Because you are only focusiing on one group of people, the consumers. The issue with your solution is a logisitcal one (well many actually). Look at how much premiums are now that don't cover everything. And you think you're going to get premium costs to go down by covering everything? How exactly are you going to do that?

i am actually not opposed to the mandate at all. as i currently already purchase health insurance through a private insurer, i dont feel that this will have a negative effect on my life. i am being told to purchase something which i already value and purchase by choice. the mandate will have no effect on me whatsoever.

then you are a peson without primciples. I don't care what government does because it doesn't effect me? You really are disgusting.

i never stated that government should tell a private company how much to pay their employees. this should be decided by the individuals that run these companies. but it does need to be controlled and regulated to a point. you dont see doctors from all over the world who have government run health care systems flocking to the US because of higher salaries?

You're not going to have a choice in the matter. Something has to give. If you want more people covered for more things then either those people have to pay more or someone has to make less.

this simply leads me back to my flat fee single payer plan. if the risk is gone and the cost is covered, then there is no need for ever denying care.

Again, it's a nice pie in the sky goal. But you have to start thinking logisitcally and realistcally about how that is going to work. Clearly you haven't done this or you would see the real logistical issues involved. Do you have the resources to cover the increased demand? How will it be paid for without borrowing money and adding to the debt etc? How much would it really cost to gauruntee access to everyone for everything? What are you going to do with the people that can't pay?

im not sure we could every make insurance irrelevant just because of the massive costs of certain procedure. you really cant bring down the real costs of a surgery. even if you broke it down to just labor costs and threw out the equipment and materials costs, it would still be extremely unaffordable for the average consumer.


i actually did shop for similar plans, and the problem is, between i different insurance companies, their plans vary so widely you cant even compare them.


for example:

30 year old male, los angeles, ca, non smoker
$25 Co pay, $0 annual deductible, $1500 out of pocket annual max, hospitalization $250

Kaiser HMO - $150 / month

the closest plans found:

Blue Shield PPO - $226 / month
$25 Co pay, $0 annual deductible, $6000 out of pocket annual max, hospitalization $500

Aetna doesnt even offer a plan with $0 deductible
but with a $35 copay - $3,500 deductible and 30% co insurance the rate is $176

why cant all the plans just be the same with same rate. we can look at historic health care costs over the last 10 years and figure out the average. what if it costs $175 / month to cover you for everything? would that be unreasonable? we are covering the costs of the actual services given, while at the same time covering more people. its a win for the insurance companies, and a win for the consumer.

That's exaclty my point. You are only looking at cost. the differences in the plans are good things. That gives you choice. Take some repsonsibility and decide for yourself what features you like and don't like. Give yourself the power to make decision. If more people do that prices will go down. That is the solution to cutting costs. Again your 'cover everyone for everything' is a goal, not a solution and your means of getting their is wholly unfeasible.

 

[Bill Angel]

Insurance not paying for something is not a death sentence. It just means one party isn't going to pay for it. Find another party that will or you pay for it. Work out a payment plan with the hospital you would be surprised how willing hospitals are to deal when the money is coming directly from the user and they dont have to mess around with insurance companies.

I agree. In the city where I live persons with serious medical problems have several other options available. One option is to participate in the clinical trials of new medications meant to treat various afflictions. The pharmaceutical companies who sponsor these trials will even monetarily compensate the patients for their participation. The idea here is that the pharmaceutical companies want to know what side effects people may experience when taking the medications, before the medications are released for use by physicians.

I am also familiar with situations where people will very little money will travel to a city where these clinical trials are offered and stay at local homeless shelters (for free) just to participate in the drug studies and collect the compensation. These are healthy individuals with no specific afflictions who are just doing it for the money.

 

[Common Sense]

you still havent offered a single solution. you simply disagree to disagree. I offer actual viable solutions, but you are the party of "NO". you think choices drive down costs. in some cases this may be true but not in all cases.

just because you dont know any whos has bought a car and hasnt done any maintenance on it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. and even if you do put a maintenance cost into a car, if it does break down you can buy a new one! get a clue. you cant buy a new body. why arent you comparing health care to a lawn mower? or a house? they both require maintenance. what about comparing it to you cat or dog? they required about the same? this all meet your litmus test for costing money to buy and maintain. we could make this list go on forever. but it serves not purpose. as not caring for a lawn mower, house, cat or dog will lead to physical pain and suffering, and potentially death if not cared for. open you eyes and see thins.

so when you say im only focusing on one group of people and my problems are logistical. explain how..... the only thing youve stated over and over again is that you fear there will be too much demand. and i responded with in the beginning, there probably will be. as people try to get treated for things that they have let lag for years. but its not like people will all of a sudden say, hey i should go to the doctor once a month to make sure im healthy. the majority of the public who has health care doesnt even do this. but youre still ok with this other group of people not getting care. you also forget that doctors have to be willing to take on new patients. ive had to call several doctors before because the ones i wanted to see were not accepting new patients. this is how the system can right itself. doctors can choose to expand their practices or keep with the patients they already have. and if demand rises, then entrepreneurs should see this as an opportunity and be able to open new businesses, which will lead to more jobs which helps grow the economy. win win.

"then you are a peson without primciples. I don't care what government does because it doesn't effect me? You really are disgusting."

how i am without principles? i never said i dont care about what the government does because it doesnt effect me. i simply said the government is going to require me to do something i already do. how does this change my life? i was wearing a seat belt before the made it mandatory. it didnt make me say, well hell since the government is telling me to do this, im gonna rebel against the man and not wear one. i go back to the car insurance analogy. tell me why you are ok with the government telling you in order to drive you are required to carry car insurance. an insurance that actually protects other people from your potential negligence and not necessarily yourself. (i see you failed to have a comment on that matter)


covering everyone for everything doesnt mean that someone can just walk into the hospital and say give me a new heart cause i want one. there is still the responsibility of the doctor and patient to determine the correct course of care. but if you take the administrator out of the equation, we have an immediate cost savings right there. if the doctor determines that a treatment or procedure needs to take place, they can implement that decision right away. this does away with needs to claims and review panels to determine if that patient get the care he needs. it cuts waste out of the system by eliminating administrative jobs that are simply a cost, and it also eliminates the time a patient has to wait, either in a hospital bed or at home before he or she can receive care. streamlining the system.

obviously you think the system is perfect by letting someone else determine what services you can or cant receive.

youre an immoral person if you agree that denying someone health care based on a preset dollar amount is ok. i hope the next time you go to the doctor, they tell you that something isnt covered by your premium and you get to pay for it out of pocket. just so you can see what the other side of the system is like.

 

[Bern80]

you still havent offered a single solution. you simply disagree to disagree. I offer actual viable solutions, but you are the party of "NO". you think choices drive down costs. in some cases this may be true but not in all cases.

Of course not always. Again choice in alternative is A variable that determines somethings cost. Certainly not the only one. It remains a fact however that more choice does effect the price of something. And I have listed plenty of alternative solutions. You just won't listen to any that don't involve governement.

just because you dont know any whos has bought a car and hasnt done any maintenance on it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. and even if you do put a maintenance cost into a car, if it does break down you can buy a new one! get a clue. you cant buy a new body. why arent you comparing health care to a lawn mower? or a house? they both require maintenance. what about comparing it to you cat or dog? they required about the same? this all meet your litmus test for costing money to buy and maintain. we could make this list go on forever. but it serves not purpose. as not caring for a lawn mower, house, cat or dog will lead to physical pain and suffering, and potentially death if not cared for. open you eyes and see thins.

When I have said those other examples wouldn't also be analogous? Again your intent on focusing on single variables, like disposiability is part of the problem. Of course a body isn't as easy to replace as a car that's one difference. But you can't deny the similarities. It costs money to maintain both. They deterioate if not taken care of, etc.

so when you say im only focusing on one group of people and my problems are logistical. explain how..... the only thing youve stated over and over again is that you fear there will be too much demand. and i responded with in the beginning, there probably will be. as people try to get treated for things that they have let lag for years. but its not like people will all of a sudden say, hey i should go to the doctor once a month to make sure im healthy. the majority of the public who has health care doesnt even do this. but youre still ok with this other group of people not getting care. you also forget that doctors have to be willing to take on new patients. ive had to call several doctors before because the ones i wanted to see were not accepting new patients. this is how the system can right itself. doctors can choose to expand their practices or keep with the patients they already have. and if demand rises, then entrepreneurs should see this as an opportunity and be able to open new businesses, which will lead to more jobs which helps grow the economy. win win.

Your logistical problem is the financial sustainability of a single payer system (that single payer being government) that maintains accessibility when needed and covers everyone for everything.

how i am without principles? i never said i dont care about what the government does because it doesnt effect me. i simply said the government is going to require me to do something i already do. how does this change my life? i was wearing a seat belt before the made it mandatory. it didnt make me say, well hell since the government is telling me to do this, im gonna rebel against the man and not wear one. i go back to the car insurance analogy. tell me why you are ok with the government telling you in order to drive you are required to carry car insurance. an insurance that actually protects other people from your potential negligence and not necessarily yourself. (i see you failed to have a comment on that matter)

That is exactly what you said. You said you don't care if government takes aways someone's choice on the basis that your choice just happens to be the one government is forcing on everyone else. I already told I am not okay with government requiring people to buy car insurance either. Part of your problem, common sense, is your endless assumptions. Part of what makes you a horseshit problem solver.

covering everyone for everything doesnt mean that someone can just walk into the hospital and say give me a new heart cause i want one. there is still the responsibility of the doctor and patient to determine the correct course of care. but if you take the administrator out of the equation, we have an immediate cost savings right there. if the doctor determines that a treatment or procedure needs to take place, they can implement that decision right away. this does away with needs to claims and review panels to determine if that patient get the care he needs. it cuts waste out of the system by eliminating administrative jobs that are simply a cost, and it also eliminates the time a patient has to wait, either in a hospital bed or at home before he or she can receive care. streamlining the system.

I agree, it's just that government being the insurance provider is not the best solution to that. There are other ways to keep insurance companies from keeping people from getting the care they need. I prefer free market solutions that give consumers more control. You prefer government solutions. The poblem is a government solution is gradually going to errode your control.

The logistical issues with your solution is that it only works if there is enough money and access to cover everyone for everything over a sustained period of time. I just don't how you're going to be able to get enough revenue to do that. Meaning at some point government is going to have to take measures to cut costs and at some point that is going to involve telling people how they have to live their lives.

obviously you think the system is perfect by letting someone else determine what services you can or cant receive.

Of course I don't. Just because I think your solution sucks doesn't mean I think the way it is now is great.

youre an immoral person if you agree that denying someone health care based on a preset dollar amount is ok. i hope the next time you go to the doctor, they tell you that something isnt covered by your premium and you get to pay for it out of pocket. just so you can see what the other side of the system is like.

The ability to pay is not the reason I would deny coverage. The reason I would deny coverage is if two people with the ability to pay plans that cover different things for different rates. If you choose plan x that didn't cover what you have, sorry, that was a concsious choice you made in purchasing your plan.

As to the people that really can't pay, they should be treated provided the resources are available. I do not have any problem whatsoever with government programs that help people that truly can not help themselves.

 

[Greenbeard]

Of course you don't understand it. Most people don't. But I challenge you to look at things in a different way. Cars at one time were a luxury, but for the vast majority of people in this country anyway a car is now a life necessity. Your whole public transporation option is a joke. The united states of america is not comprised of just DC, New York City, LA, Boston. etc. They are the exceptions where public transporation is a viable option, not the rule. So in terms of necessity yes cars are very analogous.

That may be true from a practical standpoint, but philosophically it's muddled. Cars can be necessary for many things: holding a job, allowing one to find affordable housing, accessing reasonable grocery options, and so on. That is, they're necessary for many of the social experiences of modern life. But unless you're embracing an FDR Four Freedoms-esque view that proposes to elevate those social factors into human rights (does a person have a "right" to a job?), it doesn't matter if a car is necessary for their fulfillment. On the other hand, health care is (at least on paper, anyway, when we assume a well-functioning system with good incentives) is dedicating to protecting and extending life-years. And our political culture is based on the notion that a right to life is sacred.

So regardless of whether transportation and health care are both necessary, the latter is necessary for protecting life-years while the former is necessary for plenty of things that haven't quite yet been accepted as rights that our political institutions are compelled to defend. Given the philosophical underpinnings of our politics, the transportation-health care analogy doesn't work.

 

[Bern80]

Of course you don't understand it. Most people don't. But I challenge you to look at things in a different way. Cars at one time were a luxury, but for the vast majority of people in this country anyway a car is now a life necessity. Your whole public transporation option is a joke. The united states of america is not comprised of just DC, New York City, LA, Boston. etc. They are the exceptions where public transporation is a viable option, not the rule. So in terms of necessity yes cars are very analogous.

That may be true from a practical standpoint, but philosophically it's muddled. Cars can be necessary for many things: holding a job, allowing one to find affordable housing, accessing reasonable grocery options, and so on. That is, they're necessary for many of the social experiences of modern life. But unless you're embracing an FDR Four Freedoms-esque view that proposes to elevate those social factors into human rights (does a person have a "right" to a job?), it doesn't matter if a car is necessary for their fulfillment. On the other hand, health care is (at least on paper, anyway, when we assume a well-functioning system with good incentives) is dedicating to protecting and extending life-years. And our political culture is based on the notion that a right to life is sacred.

So regardless of whether transportation and health care are both necessary, the latter is necessary for protecting life-years while the former is necessary for plenty of things that haven't quite yet been accepted as rights that our political institutions are compelled to defend. Given the philosophical underpinnings of our politics, the transportation-health care analogy doesn't work.

Unfortunately that's only true if one presumes one's health is out of their control. Which it isn't. You don't have the right to make someone else pay for you poor life decisions. The concept is again analogous to cars. Maybe damage to your car is your fault, maybe it's not. Maybe you have lung cancer because you smoked a pack a day. Maybe you contracted it through no fault of your own. But becuase the possiblity exists that your health problems are your fault, you do not have the right to demand that others provide for your health care.

 

[Greenbeard]

But becuase the possiblity exists that your health problems are your fault, you do not have the right to demand that others provide for your health care.

I'm not sure what the basis for this statement is. If I knowingly go into a dangerous area of Chicago, I lose the right to call the police if my life becomes endangered? We all know the story about the firefighers letting the house in Tennessee burn down--are you saying that if someone had been burning alive in that house, the dynamics of the situation would not have been different? Why does EMTALA dictate that emergency care be offered even to those may need care through some fault of their own? The reality, as near as I can tell, is that personal irresponsibility short of criminality doesn't abrogate one's rights. And if services protecting or extending life-years fall under the umbrella of a right to life, personal habits aren't important. The analogy with transportation just isn't there.

 

[Bill Angel]

Unfortunately that's only true if one presumes one's health is out of their control. Which it isn't. You don't have the right to make someone else pay for you poor life decisions. The concept is again analogous to cars. Maybe damage to your car is your fault, maybe it's not. Maybe you have lung cancer because you smoked a pack a day. Maybe you contracted it through no fault of your own. But becuase the possiblity exists that your health problems are your fault, you do not have the right to demand that others provide for your health care.

But what about those health problems that are the result from contracting a communicable disease? If someone contracts typhus I sure would want that person treated, so that the disease is not passed along to others. Likewise with AIDS, even though no one forced that person to engage in unprotected sexual activity.

 

[Bern80]

But becuase the possiblity exists that your health problems are your fault, you do not have the right to demand that others provide for your health care.

I'm not sure what the basis for this statement is. If I knowingly go into a dangerous area of Chicago, I lose the right to call the police if my life becomes endangered? We all know the story about the firefighers letting the house in Tennessee burn down--are you saying that if someone had been burning alive in that house, the dynamics of the situation would not have been different? Why does EMTALA dictate that emergency care be offered even to those may need care through some fault of their own? The reality, as near as I can tell, is that personal irresponsibility short of criminality doesn't abrogate one's rights. And if services protecting or extending life-years fall under the umbrella of a right to life, personal habits aren't important. The analogy with transportation just isn't there.

Oh yes it does. If you behave irresponsibly with a gun for example, you lose the right to own a gun.

I think you (and many others) are confused about what the right to life means. Providing health care, extending life years, etc. DO NOT fall under the umbrella of right to life. Having a right 'to' something doesn't mean someone is obligated to provide it to you. No one is required to provide you with a gun, liberty, happiness, fair trial, etc. A right 'to' something simply means it is something that you can not be foreceably deprived of. There is a difference.

 

[Common Sense]

But becuase the possiblity exists that your health problems are your fault, you do not have the right to demand that others provide for your health care.

I'm not sure what the basis for this statement is. If I knowingly go into a dangerous area of Chicago, I lose the right to call the police if my life becomes endangered? We all know the story about the firefighers letting the house in Tennessee burn down--are you saying that if someone had been burning alive in that house, the dynamics of the situation would not have been different? Why does EMTALA dictate that emergency care be offered even to those may need care through some fault of their own? The reality, as near as I can tell, is that personal irresponsibility short of criminality doesn't abrogate one's rights. And if services protecting or extending life-years fall under the umbrella of a right to life, personal habits aren't important. The analogy with transportation just isn't there.

Oh yes it does. If you behave irresponsibly with a gun for example, you lose the right to own a gun.

I think you (and many others) are confused about what the right to life means. Providing health care, extending life years, etc. DO NOT fall under the umbrella of right to life. Having a right 'to' something doesn't mean someone is obligated to provide it to you. No one is required to provide you with a gun, liberty, happiness, fair trial, etc. A right 'to' something simply means it is something that you can not be foreceably deprived of. There is a difference.

you just said we do not deserve the right to "liberty, happiness and fair trial"?? have you read the constitution and the declaration of independance?


D.O.I - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

5th Ammendment - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th Ammendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

educate yourself before you speak, otherwise your just another idiot with a computer.

so i ask you this question - if the conservative right want to make it law that if you become pregnant the government can force you to give birth to that child, (repeal of roe v. wade) because as the argument goes, life is sacred. why are the lives of the already living not sacred and treated with the same amount of respect? how can you force a woman to have a child, but not give medical treatment to the living?

 

[Bern80]

you just said we do not deserve the right to "liberty, happiness and fair trial"?? have you read the constitution and the declaration of independance?

Not what I said at all.... rendering the rest of your fiegned indignation in this post irrelevent. I did re-read what I wrote and only someone being delibiteraly obtuse would take what is written to mean that I am saying you don't have a right to what the consitution quite clearly says you do. Come back when you're willing to show a little honest, intellectual integrity.

 

[Common Sense]

you just said we do not deserve the right to "liberty, happiness and fair trial"?? have you read the constitution and the declaration of independance?

Not what I said at all.... rendering the rest of your fiegned indignation in this post irrelevent. I did re-read what I wrote and only someone being delibiteraly obtuse would take what is written to mean that I am saying you don't have a right to what the consitution quite clearly says you do. Come back when you're willing to show a little honest, intellectual integrity.

youre the one with the skewed view on rights.

here are you exact words: "No one is required to provide you with a gun, liberty, happiness, fair trial"

the only part of the sentence that is even remotely true the gun. seeing as how the gun is the only tangible item on the list. although the constitution doesnt specifically say guns does it. it says the "right to bear arms." it doesnt say the right to have or own a gun. this then becomes a choice if you want to "bear arms".

the government is required by law, to provide you with a "fair trial." it does not say that you have a right to a trial and if decided that you are not given a "fair" trail we will allow you to have another. yet another hole in your logic.

so mr genius no where in the constitution does it say you have the right to air, water, food, or shelter. so hence by your argument since these are not rights, i am not breaking any laws by depriving them from you or anyone else. your argument is full of stupid holes like this.

by your logic the constitution should read, we will allow citizen the opportunity to achieve happiness, have guns and obtain liberty. if determined at a later time that you were deprived of these opportunities they will be given back to you.

 

[Bern80]

here are you exact words: "No one is required to provide you with a gun, liberty, happiness, fair trial"

If the nuance of not being required to provide you with something vs. the right to not be deprived of something escapes you, I am afraid you can not be helped.

the only part of the sentence that is even remotely true the gun. seeing as how the gun is the only tangible item on the list. although the constitution doesnt specifically say guns does it. it says the "right to bear arms." it doesnt say the right to have or own a gun. this then becomes a choice if you want to "bear arms".

Only one being truly intellectually dishonest would even attempt to make the argument that the 'arms' does not refer to a gun fireARM

the government is required by law, to provide you with a "fair trial." it does not say that you have a right to a trial and if decided that you are not given a "fair" trail we will allow you to have another. yet another hole in your logic.

No. The government can not deprive you of a fair trial.

so mr genius no where in the constitution does it say you have the right to air, water, food, or shelter. so hence by your argument since these are not rights, i am not breaking any laws by depriving them from you or anyone else. your argument is full of stupid holes like this.

How exactly have you concluded that my argument follows that if a right is not in the constitution you have the right to deprive someone of said right?

by your logic the constitution should read, we will allow citizen the opportunity to achieve happiness, have guns and obtain liberty. if determined at a later time that you were deprived of these opportunities they will be given back to you.

That's how the constituion DOES read. Rights aren't EVER given. You already have them. Because you already have them they are only something that can be taken from you. Read the first and second ammendements for example. Do they say the government grants and is required to supply the tools to exercise these rights or does it say they government is prohibited from TAKING these rights?

p.s. interesting you piggy back off of greenbeard instead actually defending your own points.