Insurance reform, necessary, but is it sufficient?

[Cecilie1200]

What are the arguments against a public option? And why are the pros and cons of a public option not debated?
Is it because the issue of systemic reform of how medical care in America is provided is too complicated?
Or is it that change is scary for most people, and powerful interests exploit fear of change out of self interest?
Having read the 'arguments' against reform, I have concluded that those opposed are incapable of critical thought, or, hold an ideological bias and choose to be willfully ignorant.

Having read your post, I have concluded that you can't hear anything but the voices in your own head, and those people who agree with you and think you're brilliant.

Call me when you're asking questions to hear the answer, instead of asking them so they can BE the answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Insurance reform, necessary, but is it sufficient?

No...Medicare/Medicaid and the FDA need to be abolished, and thier functions devolved to either the states ort private enterprise.

In the meantime, regulations on medical insurers need to be cut back, not increaased. For example, the various laws that prevent customers from shopping across state lines for coverage and mandates upon the insurers, as to the policies that they may and may not write.

It just blows my mind that anyone could actually think that the free market is a solution to health insurance considering the structure of the profit motive in the industry...

Could you do me a favor and define for me what you think the function of a health insurance system should be? As in, what is the result that society should desire it to achieve? And please, feel free to be detailed.

It just blows my mind that anyone could actually look at health care in this country and conclude that the solution is MORE government involvement.

Could you do me a favor and define for me what you think the function of the "profit motive" in any industry is? As in, why do you seem like you're dropping the F-bomb every time you mention it? And please, feel free to be detailed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A single payer system is the way to go; there is no rational reason to oppose this refrom.
I challenge those who do (oppose) a single payer system to explain why.

Why? Your posts make it clear that you're not listening, and haven't been. I challenge you to convince me that your ears, let alone your mind, are open enough to make you worth the time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah, a name caller. What a surprise. You must be a conservative Republican (or maybe a conservative independent or even a - shudder - neocon).
What "OTHER" solution do you have, C...1200?
Of course you don't have a clue, which is why you engage in name calling. Next time call me a Socialist or a commie or a libtard - all of which may make you feel smart and me (and others) laugh at your foolish ignorance.

 

[veritas]

HR676

HR 676 – Healthcare-NOW!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sound very good to me, Veritas. Thank you. Too bad C...1200 is predisposed to ignore anything which challenges her beliefs and won't take the time to read or respond to alternatives.

 

[veritas]

Sound very good to me, Veritas. Thank you. Too bad C...1200 is predisposed to ignore anything which challenges her beliefs and won't take the time to read or respond to alternatives.

I don't even read her posts. She's an insult generator bot.

 

[gcomeau]

It just blows my mind that anyone could actually look at health care in this country and conclude that the solution is MORE government involvement.

Could you do me a favor and define for me what you think the function of the "profit motive" in any industry is?

You seriously need it explained? Well, alright...

Let's compare and contrast the ideal customer in two different industries as a means of illustrrating the differences in structure of the profit motive in a free insurance market relative to a market for almost any other consumer good or service.

Let's look at, say, selling insurance and selling produce.

If I sell veggies for a living, what does my ideal customer look like? Is it someone who needs and consumes vegetables the MOST, or someone who needs and consumes little or no vegetables whatsoever? Obviously, it is the latter. There is greater profit to be made supplying that person's needs. They will use more of my prodduct, and that means they will buy more of my product in almost perfectly directly linear proportion to how much they consume. ("almost" because generally there are some discounting effects that occur in bulk purchasing situations, etc...)

Which, in the simpoest possible terms, means the more veggies they eat the more money I make. So what is my profit motive? It is to MEET THE GREATEST NEEDS of society for my product. I will structure my business towards that end. I will do what is necessary to attract those customers. I will make a tidy profit off of doing so. and society gets it's needs met and everything ticks along pretty damn well.


Now, let's say I sell insurance. (Please tell me you see where this is going by now)

What does my ideal customer look like? Someone who uses and consumes LOTS of my services? Hell no. Becase see, my customers don't pay me in direct proportion to how much services they consume. That isn't how insurance works. I get paid effectively the same amount whether they end up using no services or 10 million dollars worth of services. So, if I think someone is going to have a high probability of being the latter do I want anything to do with them as a customer? At all?

NO.

My profit motive is NOT to meet the greatest needs of society in my business sector. It is to avoid doing so at all costs. I want to sell policies to nice healthy, young people who will hand over their premium checks then never, ever use what I just sold them. That's paradise for me. sIn the meantime people at the high end of the spectrum on the "mneed health insurance" scale are people who not only don't make me any money, they can *cost* me massive amounts of it. I will not take steps to structure my business to meet these people' needs. I have absolutely no motivation whatsoever to do anything of the kind.

Getting the picture here yet? Starting to see why some people might consider it... insane, to turn over the provision of insurance to an unregulated free market where the people doing the providing only make money by NOT selling insurance to the people who actually need it if they can at all help it?

It's not exactly terribly complicated.

Now, how about you answer my original question?

As in, why do you seem like you're dropping the F-bomb every time you mention it? And please, feel free to be detailed.

Do you think you're talking to someone else by any chance? I think I've mentioned it on this forum... once. So I'm not familiar with this "every time" you are referring to. And that time I metioned it I was not making anything even remotely intimating a profane statement. Incredulous perhaps... you do grasp the difference?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I will follow you lead veritas, I will add her to my "ignore" list.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It just blows my mind that anyone could actually think that the free market is a solution to health insurance considering the structure of the profit motive in the industry...

Could you do me a favor and define for me what you think the function of a health insurance system should be? As in, what is the result that society should desire it to achieve? And please, feel free to be detailed.

Dude lives in a cave with his transistor radio and a hound dog. He lost the rug in a bowling bet.

While I'm usually up for the trading of insults, I seriously do want to make an attempt to figure out what is going through the heads of people who make this argument. I've seen it advanced by several people and it has been incomprehensible to me every time. I am so far left with the firm impression that those arguing that the solution to the health insurance problems in this country are to deregulate and let the free market work it's magic either have never given any thought whatsoever to what a free insurance market actually *does*, or have a wildly divergent opinion of what the purpose of a health care system in society is supposed to be. And getting someone on that side of the issue to attempt to fill in some of the blanks might prove useful.

That's a fair question...perhaps this may help...

In a free market system YOU would be responsible for your own health care and insurance....not Big Brother...

Expensive third parties like government and employers take a back seat.....YOU are in the driver's seat. The enormous health services market competes for YOUR buck....just like all other businesses do....by offering you more or a better product for your money....to compete for your health dollar.

How do you pay for your health care? Mainly two ways:

1)You pay directly from your tax-free individual tax-free HSA (health savings account) to the doctor or clinic that you choose to visit for most of your "ordinary" care, doctor visits, lab tests, and all expenses up to a preset maximum amount per year.

2)You pay via major medical/catastropic health insurance...or high deductible health plans (HDHP)...for the "big" health expenses you may experience.

These low-cost consumer-driven health (CDH) products have been offered since 2000 and have had considerable success.
Emerging Data on Consumer-Driven Health Plans
www.actuary.org/pdf/health/dchp_may09.pdf

Regarding your concerns that insurance companies are going to try to give you the shaft....there should be some government regulation to prevent that....for example requiring companies to publish price lists to enable comparison shopping...

Also it's been suggested....to help redistribute the costs....create a national health pool...kind of like a national stock market....and also require everybody to buy health insurance....much like requiring car insurance...

 

[Wry Catcher]

S...Eagle,
I disagree. Single payer, non-profit. No need to advertise. No need for small print, no need for lawyers to work day and night to limit payouts, no need for salespeople, district managers, executive managers or CFO's, CEO's.

Why do we need insurance companies?
Why?
Consider, the conservative chic was willing to let General Motors fail and all of its employees put out of work. I willing to let the insurance companies reinvent, and maybe sell something useful like time shares or snake oil to cure hypocrisy. We sure need that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah, a name caller. What a surprise. You must be a conservative Republican (or maybe a conservative independent or even a - shudder - neocon).
What "OTHER" solution do you have, C...1200?
Of course you don't have a clue, which is why you engage in name calling. Next time call me a Socialist or a commie or a libtard - all of which may make you feel smart and me (and others) laugh at your foolish ignorance.

Ah, there we go. Come in, pretend to be open-minded and honestly curious while in fact being confrontational and condescending to the point of insult, and then when you're called on your obvious hypocrisy, run and hide behind, "You're a namecaller."

You're absolutely right, Wry. I'm a namecaller. When you earn and richly deserve a name, I call it. You've shown yourself to be a closeminded hypocrite in your posts, and I see no reason to pretend you're anything else. Unlike you, I'm not interested in impressing fools, hypocrites, and poltroons, so I have no desire whatsoever to have you sitting around, thinking I'm a nice person.

I repeat: Call me when you grow a pair and want to ask questions to hear the answers, rather than asking them to BE the answers.

 

[Oddball]

Insurance reform, necessary, but is it sufficient?

No...Medicare/Medicaid and the FDA need to be abolished, and thier functions devolved to either the states ort private enterprise.

In the meantime, regulations on medical insurers need to be cut back, not increaased. For example, the various laws that prevent customers from shopping across state lines for coverage and mandates upon the insurers, as to the policies that they may and may not write.

It just blows my mind that anyone could actually think that the free market is a solution to health insurance considering the structure of the profit motive in the industry...

Could you do me a favor and define for me what you think the function of a health insurance system should be? As in, what is the result that society should desire it to achieve? And please, feel free to be detailed.

What's mind blowing is the notion that the very people who've driven the costs of medical coverage and care through the roof are the ones who can fix it by even more meddling and mandates.

Medical insurance is a product like everything else...Nobody is forced to buy it if you don't want it...What the unquantifiable "society" wants out of them beyond that is irrelevant.

On top of that, if you think your model for how insurance companies should be run is so hot, then start up and operate an insurance company.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What OTHER soluton do you have, was a question. A question ignored by C...1200.
I post, I support universal health care, and rather than debate the pros cons I get the 'treatment'; the usual typical and predictable response -name calling, and one of the many talking points issue by the propagandists on the right, all framed by logical fallicy.
Of course Dude tried to answer, but did so with a talking point.

 

[Emma]

Why do we need insurance companies?
Why?

Indeed.

 

[Thinman]

Why do we need insurance companies?
Why?

Indeed.

The public option may eliminate health care and medical insurance companies eventually, but it won’t be any cheaper. Show me a government program that is more efficient than a private program. Doctors will still require malpractice insurance. Juries will still award astronomical sums. Frivolous lawsuits will continue to flourish.

However, it could provide significant decreases in unemployment. So many more government jobs created. It could rival the IRS.

 

[Oddball]

What OTHER soluton do you have, was a question. A question ignored by C...1200.
I post, I support universal health care, and rather than debate the pros cons I get the 'treatment'; the usual typical and predictable response -name calling, and one of the many talking points issue by the propagandists on the right, all framed by logical fallicy.
Of course Dude tried to answer, but did so with a talking point.

Why does anyone have to come up with any solution other than get the hell out of the way?

It's the only thing that hasn't been tried.

That's no talking point, that's the way it is.

 

[gcomeau]

The public option may eliminate health care and medical insurance companies eventually, but it won’t be any cheaper.

It'll be a little cheaper.. but not much as long as the total marketplace is still being completely screwed up my the massive number of poorly regulated private insurers.

Show me a government program that is more efficient than a private program.

Ummm... Medicare. It only has less than half the administrative overhead of private insurers.

 

[Oddball]

The public option may eliminate health care and medical insurance companies eventually, but it won’t be any cheaper.

It'll be a little cheaper.. but not much as long as the total marketplace is still being completely screwed up my the massive number of poorly regulated private insurers.

Your ass it'll be cheaper.

The surest way to make anything more expensive and be a sure-fire money loser is for gubmint to take it over.

See: Amtrak.

Show me a government program that is more efficient than a private program.

Ummm... Medicare. It only has less than half the administrative overhead of private insurers.

I'm sooooo tired of that BS statistic being spewed as gospel.

Administrative costs aren't the only things on the expense side of a ledger....Medicare costs nearly 10 times (and that's counting inflation) what it was projected to costs when it was passed....admin costs and all.

Try again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dude, how about a little evidence? Prove that it costs ten times more for a medicare patient to get the same treatment as a non-medicare patient. Hyperbole won't make your case stronger, it makes it much more suspect.
Common sense suggests government insurance will be cheaper than that offered by the private sector. Consider, no profit motive, no need to advertise, and no need for tort reform. If the Doc screws up, s/he gets retrained or fired; and the victim (or their family) is compensated.