Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.
Bullshit.
Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.
Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Well at least she could sue. Try that when a government agency is determining your mom's health treatments. And furthermore with a private (corporate) insurance company you (or your mom) have the power to drag them into small claims court, in your own state and town, while acting as your own attorney, while they have to incur the costs of sending an attorney to plead their case. Did you know that? Try that with the coming Burea-of-federal-cost-accounting-and-medical treatment or whatever they end up calling it.Ah yes, the freedom to choose.
So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?
Some "freedom" that was.
When it comes to lawsuit...I'm not sure there is that much difference between suing the government or a corporation. Unless you have a lot of money - or the potential to win a lot of money and thus interest a lawyer - or a class action suit - you have little leverage. A lot of corporations look at the risk/benifit ratio when it comes to lawsuits - it is often worth the risk of simply paying off a potential lawsuit in order to get your potentially faulty product on the market and realize the profit - particularly pharmaceuticals.
Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.
Bullshit.
Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.
Horseshit, "no one is caring for them". Frankly, I'd much rather depend on having someone care for me medically because it's in HIS interests to do so than waiting for someone to come do it just because they're remarkably generous, altruistic creature with a strong "moral compass". THAT really WOULD have me dead.
And here's a newsflash for you, Sparky. Death is never pleasant, and everyone does it anyway, rich or poor, no matter how much medical care they get or who pays for it. Life sucks, and if you're looking for the government to change that, well . . . I for one just hope you're holding your breath while you wait.
Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.
Bullshit.
Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.
What's fascinating to me is that the cons are so selective as to which "moral compass" to defend or kick to the curb as insignificant. I could bring up several analogies, but that would change the topic matter, so I'll leave it to the imagination which of those I'm talking about.
Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?
I make one statement - supporting government intervention on one particular subject and you draw a sweeping generalization from that?
There is a word for that: retarded.
You're right, your position WAS retarded. I'm glad you can recognize that.
And given that that "one particular subject" involves an ENORMOUS segment of our economy being taken over by the government, I'd call that pretty sweeping all on its own.
Huh? Where did I say that?
Every time you automatically jumped to "It has to be done, that means the government will do it." You did it in at least two places that I can recall off the top of my head.
Next time give me a heads up when you aren't dealing in reality.
Okay. Any time I'm dealing with your pie-in-the-sky "Benevolent Government" bullshit, I'm not dealing with reality. There's your heads-up. Make a note of it somewhere.
Then what happens when there is something to be done but no profit possible? Duhhhh.
When that's relevant to the topic, we'll talk about it. At the moment, we are not talking about something that requires charitable intervention. We're talking about government-run control of health care.
Try to focus, please, and quit trying to dance off down tangents with no other purpose than distracting from issues you can't address.
For example - take the school system. Private schools are often more successful....well woopdie do - do you ever wonder why? Because they can pick and choose - they don't need to take everyone. If they did - their profit would go down as would their success rate. Someone has to take the problem kids and give them an education too or they end up a burden on society or in the criminal justice system.
First of all, schools are not relevant to health care. Second, if I had wanted to be treated to yet another of your "the government must handle things!" rants, I'd have asked. But I do thank you for giving us all another demonstration of the mindset you said I was "imagining" because I "don't know you". Yeah, I don't have your number at all.
Oh not that old and tired Libertarian whine again!
That's it? That's your whole answer? "I don't want to hear your sob story, so it's dismissed?" All righty, then. I don't want to hear YOUR fricking sob story about how some people have it so hard, so I and others like me need to pay their doctor bills. To paraphrase you, "Oh, not that old and tired liberal whine again!
My tax money pays for other people's kids to get an education, it pays for an interstate highway system, road repair, emergency services, affordable public transport, police, military protection, social services for the needy and - you know, I may not agree with it all and yes, there may well be some cheaters - but I don't have a problem with my tax money going for those service and "do gooder" has precious little to do with it.
And because you pay for community services, you figure everything under the sun should be viewed as a community service and also covered by taxpayer dollars? Or is it that you think welfare has done such a good job that everyone should be on it?
You don't have a problem with your tax dollars going to these things? Fine. Call the IRS and arrange a personal donation. I'm not talking about your tax dollars. I'm talking about MINE.
It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about. Ever consider departing from stale old ideological talking points? Might make an interesting change.
You mean like the refreshing originality of your "people are in need and the government must step in and handle it" approach? That's not stale, old ideological talking points at ALL.
Wow, you're just so full of wonderful insights and witty comments not to mention gross exaggerations.
Yup...overly optimistic. Guess I should ratchet it down a notch or ten.
I wasn't even aware you had turned it on. I was thinking all this "your arguments are so stupid, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about" bullshit was a prelude to your argument. I didn't realize it WAS the argument. So you're going on the record with "You're a mean, stupid poophead" as your position, then?
Again...is it possible for you to deviate from ideological talking points and actually make sense...? Or are lame insults your only forte?
Is it possible for you to answer any of them with anything other than "Can you say something else?" I won't be saying something else until 1) it stops being true and 2) you stop being such a cowardly fluffbrain and actually RESPOND. Before those two things happen, I have no reason to say anything else, and every reason to keep repeating it until you either get it drilled through your thick skull or the typical liberal five-minute attention span kicks in and you wander off to play with your Barbies.
WHO is talking about " turning over the entire healthcare system to the government to control"? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or something?
No, Mensa Girl. Do you have a problem with situational awareness? You came on this board and jumped into a discussion thread with no idea what's actually going on in the national debate on the topic? Why are you wasting everyone's time with your delusions?
Who is this vague "lots of people"? "Lots of people" opt not to but it's not "just fine" - many of them end up abusing emergency room services or avoiding medical care until they are seriously sick and costing either the medical profession or the public in unpaid bills. Maybe that's part of what drives the costs up.
Now you're objecting to your own parameters? It's okay to talk vaguely about people doing without life insurance, but when it comes to people opting out of having health insurance, that requires specific numbers? It doesn't matter how many or who they are. It's not a matter of debate whether or not people choose not to carry health insurance.
As for "many of them abuse emergency services" and driving costs up: if that's true (and talk about your vague parameters. "Lots of people" is bad, but "many of them" is spiffy?), do you think POSSIBLY there's any chance they'd also abuse taxpayer-funded health coverage and drive costs up even more? That's even assuming you have any idea what you're talking about, which I doubt. You start out not even knowing anything about people who opt out of having health insurance, and segue to being an expert on what they do afterward? How about you show me some stats on people who could get health insurance, choose not to, and then become a pubic burden, and exactly how that happens?
Try and focus on the fact that we are talking "real world" here - not some mythical ideological utopia.
You mean like the one you're living in, where politicians and bureaucrats are moral and righteous and caring, and medical care suddenly costs nothing to provide so the government can just hand it out at will to 300 million + people?
In my state at least, you can be in a position to have a legal license and not be insurable - no company will insure you. The state has an insurance for that purpose and only that purpose. So tell again - when private insurance companies decide the risk is too great - how are they going to fill the gap? Stick to reality please.
Oh, WELL, if it happens in YOUR state, that must mean it's reality for EVERYONE.
Or perhaps you could stick to REAL reality, where the whole fucking world doesn't live in your state and revolve around the way YOUR life works. In my state, you purchase auto insurance or you just don't drive. The fact that you apparently live in a liberal utopia with a Nanny Government that feels the need to keep bad drivers on the road tells me a lot about why you default to thinking the government is the only way to get something done.
As for health insurance, it's already been stated a dozen times that there are programs already in effect to help those in dire straits. Even if there weren't, it does not require any of the wild-assed schemes suggested by the Democrats to remedy that problem. You are not going to be able to hide this government takeover behind the skirts of the hard cases.
Another brilliant bit of ideological "wit" in lieu of facts. Can you come up with anything better?
Never mind, rhetorical question.
Since you have yet to exhibit the stones to actually answer any points, I have no reason to say anything else. And none of my questions are rhetorical. You're just too chickenshit to respond.
Hands off...oh, you mean totally hands off...like, in the days of the sweatshop industries? Ah, the good old days. The market can do no wrong....
Yeah, it's funny, but when I say "hands off", I actually mean "with your fucking hands not on it in any way". In this case, however, your attempt to jump around and topic-hop "The government has been SOOOO hands off . . . oh, but you want sweatshops!" isn't even amusing, let alone incisive.
I never said the market can do no wrong. I said it's better than the government, which - sorry to shock you out of your Presidential kneepads - has to struggle to do anything RIGHT.
Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:
When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.
The hospital's doctors nonetheless treated him aggressively, punching a hole in his chest to insert a drainage tube, which quickly led to uncontrolled bleeding, an infection, and a plunge in blood pressure.
Within 12 hours, my father was in a coma, with no chance of recovery, sustained only by a ventilator and a tangle of multiple IV drips. He spent four days in the ICU, until I overcame the resistance of two doctors and had the machines turned off, as per my dad's living will.
Medicare paid upward of $20,000 for these last days of my father's life, during which he received little comfort, moments of agonizing pain and fear, and all the medical care in the world, and then some.
In the historic debate over health care reform now beginning in this country, we will hear much talk of "rationing." If health care is rationed, we'll be told, we may be denied drugs or surgeries or treatments based on cost, effectiveness, or the patient's condition of age. It sounds cold and heartless, except when you consider that the only real alternative to rationing is unlimited medical treatment--including a refusal to "lose" the battle with death even when death is near. Unlimited care, of course, requires unlimited spending, which is not viable.
Rationing in some form is inevitable; the only question is when we'll finally be able to admit to ourselves that even in America, there are limits to everything.
Once one is able to state the problem, it becomes so easy to prove the thesis.
This is not the kind of example of rationing that most are opposed to.
This is:
In the Province of Quebec, patients suffering from serious incontinence - ie, they have to aller aux toilettes jusqu� 12 fois par nuit (thats 12 times a night) - have to wait three years for a half-hour operation. Thats 3 years times 365 nights times 12 trips to the bathroom.
The central point about socialized medicine is that restricting access is the only means of controlling costs.
In Canada, Citizens Wait 3 Years For A Half Hour Surgery To Fix Incontinence | KXNet.com North Dakota News
Or this:
A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.
Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.
The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.
"I can't believe that at 61 I'm too old for this operation
NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery | Mail Online
Or this:
"Nice refuses, on grounds of cost, to recommend some drugs for patients with advanced kidney cancer. The consultants, who include the directors of oncology at Britains two biggest cancer hospitals, the Royal Marsden in London and Christie hospital in Manchester, claim there is enough money in the NHS to pay for the drugs. "
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
am a single parent who was layed off from Bank of America in 2007. I was offered to stay on the company's medical plan but the premium was over $1300 a month. So I opted for COBRA as it was $770 a month. After Cobra ran out, I was denied medical insurance for pre-existing conditions. I had paid medical premiums non-stop for 40 years and now I cannot get quality medical insurance. I'm 61 and my son is 17. I am very healthy for my age and need a major medical plan. I've tried these guaranteed plans and they hardly cover the expense. My bills for preventative care are barely discounted and resulted in me putting off my annual Mammography. A recent blood test showed low iron and I'll need special tests to determine the cause, but I cannot afford them. Please support health care reform. I'm just one of millions who is in desperate need. My bills are over $15,000! God Bless.
Dear President Obama, Four years ago my only sister died. Maybe she was murdered, maybe she had an accident: it looks as if well never know. My mother has struggled with her mental health for years, but Wendys death destroyed her. She took so many psyciatric medications that the side effects gave her heart failure. Shes been in and out of hospitals. She takes shock therapy. Its clear that someone is going to need to come live near her and look after her as she ages. And Im the only one left. But, theres a catch: insurance. Ive lived in Canada for a decade and am covered by the public insurance here and thank God. I havent had to struggle with insurance as I fought my own battle with trigeminal neuralgia, a debilitating and painful neurological disease. My out-of-pocket medical costs last year a year in which I had brain surgery and a baby! were less than $500, mostly related to cleaning my teeth. But I know I cant go home to America, to care for my mother. No insurance company would touch me. (I am a novelist by trade, so would have no employer insurance.) To go without insurance would be to risk my life and the financial security of my husband and children. Its breaking my heart. And I think my mother may well die years early than she should if I cant help her. Can you help us? Erin Bow Kitchener, Ontario
Health Care Stories for America | BarackObama.com
Thousands of them on that website.
There is a world of difference between health insurance and auto insurance.
And exactly WHO would offer those incentives? What would they be? Who would bear the cost subsidizing because that's what "incentives" would likely amount to.
The government.
Not to mention - you seem to keep ignoring the facts. No one is talking about the "government taking over" - they are talking about adding a public plan to cover those not currently covered and to promote real competition. Why are you so afraid of that?
Um, no. I realize that you automatically default to "the government has to do it" on everything, but actually, if you take the government out of the equation, the market offers the incentives. Yeah, people who aren't the most desirable insurance prospects are always going to have to pay more than those who are, because they're going to end up costing the insurance company more in claims.
Once again, look at auto insurance. When it became necessary for everyone to have at least liability coverage, companies offering plans to those who are routinely turned down for insurance proliferated. And then many of the major companies got in on the act, because they could see there was a niche to be filled and money to be made. The same can be said for life insurance to older people and those with pre-existing health conditions.
Right now, there's comparatively little competition in health insurance (compared to other industries) primarily because of government interference. The solution isn't to just throw up your hands and assume only the government can handle things because they've hamstrung everyone else. The solution is to move them out of the way and let the market handle it.
And if you really think "Oh, we're just suggesting a LITTLE more government intervention, not that they take the whole enchilada", then you're too naive to be allowed out without a babysitter. Try listening to your leaders when they talk once in a while, instead of just sighing happily in your pink, fuzzy clouds.
You keep saying "let the market handle it." But that's the problem. This whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if "the market had handled it" well. Frankly, insurance companies should have seen this coming and started to offer at least more pooled insurance plans for employers. I've noticed in the last few months there are some insurance companies advertising low-cost plans on television. Why did they wait so long?
Using just my own firm that I recently retired from, every time the health plan came up for renewal, Prudential would raise our rates and individual deductibles, even though we consistently had a low claim history. Finally, we did an exhaustive search comparing plans and told Prudential to take a hike. The plan we ultimately decided upon wasn't much better, but the owners decided it was time to send a strong message to Prudential. Not to single out Prudential only, if all companies did this instead of becoming complacent about automatic jumps by their existing insurers and just accepting it as a necessary evil, insurers would have become much more nervous about competition a long time ago and done something about it.
Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.
to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.
Bullshit.
Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.
What's fascinating to me is that the cons are so selective as to which "moral compass" to defend or kick to the curb as insignificant. I could bring up several analogies, but that would change the topic matter, so I'll leave it to the imagination which of those I'm talking about.
Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?
Bullshit.
Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.
Horseshit, "no one is caring for them". Frankly, I'd much rather depend on having someone care for me medically because it's in HIS interests to do so than waiting for someone to come do it just because they're remarkably generous, altruistic creature with a strong "moral compass". THAT really WOULD have me dead.
And here's a newsflash for you, Sparky. Death is never pleasant, and everyone does it anyway, rich or poor, no matter how much medical care they get or who pays for it. Life sucks, and if you're looking for the government to change that, well . . . I for one just hope you're holding your breath while you wait.
You're really quite amazing. So Coulter-esque.
Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?
Maybe beause health care has NOT been in the hands of the private sector the last 30 years, you are fooling yourself if you think it has been
Medicaid: wreaking havoc in health care
How New York State's runaway Medicaid spending is strangling the taxpayers and undercutting the quality of medical care
New York State's Medicaid program was launched more than 30 years ago as a way of financing health care for the neediest of our citizens. But today our Medicaid program has emerged as a monstrous, $24.5 billion budget-buster at both the state and local levels. And it ties up so much of its money supporting a bloated health-care industry that it cannot even offer coverage to more than 3 million uninsured New Yorkers.
About two-thirds of the money goes to provide taxpayer-financed health insurance coverage for welfare recipients, disabled, low-income and other needy residents of the state. The rest of the money pays for nursing-home care and home health care for the elderly and others who need long-term caremost of whom were not classified as "needy" until they began to require such intensive and expensive health-care services.
This nearly $25 billion program costs the taxpayers over $1,300 a year for every man, woman and child in the state. Directly (through their own taxes) and indirectly (through taxes paid by businesses from which they buy goods and services), the average family of four in New York is paying over $5,000 a year to support the Medicaid program.
That $5,000, as it happens, is close to the cost of basic health insurance coverage for a family of four. In other words, on average each family of four in the state is paying in Medicaid taxes about what it would cost to insure that whole family. Yet with all that money, Medicaid covers less than one-fifth of tour population.
Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.
Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"
Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?
Private control? Oh, please. The last "optional public plan" the government offered in health care was Medicare, which now holds 97% of its market share, and it and Medicaid make up a HUGE proportion of health care spending. In fact, the government is the number one payer of health care expenditures in the country. Tell me how that's "private control over health care for the last 30 years".
Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?
Private control? Oh, please. The last "optional public plan" the government offered in health care was Medicare, which now holds 97% of its market share, and it and Medicaid make up a HUGE proportion of health care spending. In fact, the government is the number one payer of health care expenditures in the country. Tell me how that's "private control over health care for the last 30 years".
Every time there's a thread regarding health care, the conversation somehow gets diverted to the belief that the current reform proposals involve single-payer, universal care. THEY DO NOT. We should be discussing the excalating cost of health care INSURANCE, which is what Congress is dealing with at the present time, and how to assure that people who NEED health care can get INSURANCE to cover it--not the health care itself.
Those who argue that the private sector has done a good job are just flat-out wrong. When more and more middle-class and even upper middle-class familities can no longer afford to maintain thousands of dollars in annual premiums and/or ridiculous deductibles, that is NOT the fault of the federal government but the fault of the free market gone nuts--because they can.
Rising Health Insurance Rates Hurting Businesses, Families and Individuals
In looking at some of the reports, the results are fairly startling. In Pennsylvania, for example, health care and health insurance premiums rose 6.4 times faster than earnings, or 86.2 percent rise in the cost of premiums versus a 13.2 percent rise in earnings. In Missouri, health insurance premiums rose 76.1 percent while earnings rose only 17.3 percent. Similar findings were seen in other states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and so on. According to Families USA, this represents an even greater burden on people as their incomes stagnate while health care costs continue to rise.
While rising health care premiums are a concern for everyone, it is not surprising that many fail to link the cost of health coverage to rising medical spending.
In economic terms, the fact of rising health insurance premiums is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator — an effect rather than a cause. Among the varying theories of why premiums are increasing, one fact remains irrefutable — rising medical costs are a primary driver of the cost of health coverage.
A recent study by RAND Health offers confirmation. This report found that 89 percent of premium growth over a five-year period was due to increased medical costs, while only 11 percent was attributable to health plan administrative costs. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health plan administrative costs and profits comprised only 4.5 percent of the nation's total health care spending ($2.1 trillion) in 2006.
Data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also illustrates how the rapid rise in medical costs is driving up the cost of coverage. According to the AHRQ data, doctors and other providers, not insurance companies, increased their charges for five common conditions between 69 and 85 percent from 2000 to 2005. Of those five conditions, treatment costs for allergic reactions increased by 69 percent, heart attack by 71 percent, a broken arm by 75 percent, kidney stones by 78 percent and congestive heart failure by 85 percent. In contrast, the national inflation rate for the same period was 16 percent.
Clearly, the solution to affordable coverage lies in our ability to manage costs while increasing access to quality care. Researchers from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Health estimate that as much as one-third of health care spending is attributable to medical errors, duplicative procedures, and unnecessary treatments and prescriptions. Perhaps the Dartmouth findings provide a clue, rather than a smokescreen, to the path toward affordable health care for all.
Private control? Oh, please. The last "optional public plan" the government offered in health care was Medicare, which now holds 97% of its market share, and it and Medicaid make up a HUGE proportion of health care spending. In fact, the government is the number one payer of health care expenditures in the country. Tell me how that's "private control over health care for the last 30 years".
Every time there's a thread regarding health care, the conversation somehow gets diverted to the belief that the current reform proposals involve single-payer, universal care. THEY DO NOT. We should be discussing the excalating cost of health care INSURANCE, which is what Congress is dealing with at the present time, and how to assure that people who NEED health care can get INSURANCE to cover it--not the health care itself.
Those who argue that the private sector has done a good job are just flat-out wrong. When more and more middle-class and even upper middle-class familities can no longer afford to maintain thousands of dollars in annual premiums and/or ridiculous deductibles, that is NOT the fault of the federal government but the fault of the free market gone nuts--because they can.
Rising Health Insurance Rates Hurting Businesses, Families and Individuals
In looking at some of the reports, the results are fairly startling. In Pennsylvania, for example, health care and health insurance premiums rose 6.4 times faster than earnings, or 86.2 percent rise in the cost of premiums versus a 13.2 percent rise in earnings. In Missouri, health insurance premiums rose 76.1 percent while earnings rose only 17.3 percent. Similar findings were seen in other states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and so on. According to Families USA, this represents an even greater burden on people as their incomes stagnate while health care costs continue to rise.
The question is, why are health insurance costs rising so quickly?
While rising health care premiums are a concern for everyone, it is not surprising that many fail to link the cost of health coverage to rising medical spending.
In economic terms, the fact of rising health insurance premiums is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator an effect rather than a cause. Among the varying theories of why premiums are increasing, one fact remains irrefutable rising medical costs are a primary driver of the cost of health coverage.
A recent study by RAND Health offers confirmation. This report found that 89 percent of premium growth over a five-year period was due to increased medical costs, while only 11 percent was attributable to health plan administrative costs. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health plan administrative costs and profits comprised only 4.5 percent of the nation's total health care spending ($2.1 trillion) in 2006.
Data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also illustrates how the rapid rise in medical costs is driving up the cost of coverage. According to the AHRQ data, doctors and other providers, not insurance companies, increased their charges for five common conditions between 69 and 85 percent from 2000 to 2005. Of those five conditions, treatment costs for allergic reactions increased by 69 percent, heart attack by 71 percent, a broken arm by 75 percent, kidney stones by 78 percent and congestive heart failure by 85 percent. In contrast, the national inflation rate for the same period was 16 percent.
Clearly, the solution to affordable coverage lies in our ability to manage costs while increasing access to quality care. Researchers from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Health estimate that as much as one-third of health care spending is attributable to medical errors, duplicative procedures, and unnecessary treatments and prescriptions. Perhaps the Dartmouth findings provide a clue, rather than a smokescreen, to the path toward affordable health care for all.
Blame insurance rate rise on soaring medical costs | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
In other words, higher premiums are the result of higher costs for covered services, not examples of price gouging by private insurance companies. When you are sick or injured, you are glad for the enhanced yet costly advances in medical services available to you, but if you don't want to pay for the higher costs they require, they won't be there when you need them.
The most disturbing thing about this whole debate is that the really intractable problems effecting the higher costs of health insurance, the high costs of newer diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and the aging of our population, are not being addressed at all, and many who have no answers for these real problems try to persuade voters that it is all the fault of private insurance companies. In this respect, neither Congress nor the White House had dealt with this issue responsibly.
So here's what I think will happen.
Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government guarantee that ALL eligible Americans will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.
However, that bill will include a moratorium on the government carrying out such a program for X-number of years (3 to 5 would be reasonable) during which time the private sector would need to get its own act together and REFORM their own methods of delivery so that more people would be eligible for coverage, at reasonable costs.
That's broadly put, but in my opinion, it's as far as any health care reform will go during Obama's first term. But at least ONE DOCUMENT will be out there, waiting in the wings, and another session of back-to-back draft plans muddying up the intent won't be required.
