So I guess every once and a while someone has to touch base on an issue that in its context is a touchy issue. I recently read an article on cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/04/01/autism.insurance/index.h...) that got me thinking about our society as a whole. Now, my issue with this article has nothing to do with autism, but that just happens to be the case. We sometimes forget that there wasn't always health insurance and that, in fact, it is a privilege and not a right. This country runs on a thing called capitalism which I am indeed a supporter of and have yet to see a more original, successful economy. Why then do people like the mother in this article believe it is alright to force a business to give them more rights? Insurance companies are there to make money, not help you. Consumers complain about high insurance premiums and the fact that they're not getting what they pay for. If people thought they were getting screwed out of money they would take their chances and hope they don’t get sick or injured. I would bet that yearly medical bills are more than insurance premiums (without emergencies, or extended treatment), and that's why consumers purchase insurance! Forcing a law to get passed, or the government to control businesses does nothing but set us back. Sure the government does need to protect its people (and in reality that's what it's there for), but the lack of outrage when they do overstep their boundaries is just amazing.
I think people forget why we live in a capitalist society...
By mlricche - Posted on April 1st, 2008
I think of health insurance plans as being communistic. Everyone buys in, but some don't get sick that much. Those that do get sick don't go bankrupt, while those that don't are chipping in more money for the system.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
Socialized health care, like health care run by the government...that's communistic.
I wasn't being literal. I just meant that my perspective on health insurance is that it doesn't matter if one year you don't use your health insurance, but you paid a load of money. I guess normally the idea is that if you use the same company, you'll get more out of your plan later in life. I also like to think of it in the present times too that while I'm not getting sick, someone else is and the company is paying out for them, but making a profit off of me. Even within a capitalist system, health insurance functions this way. Of course it would be more extreme in a socialized system, but the foundation is still there.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
I submit to you that humans have a right to life that's guaranteed by the United States Commons. Insurance companies exist in this country to provide a service for the consumer. That service happens to be health. But a statement like "Insurance companies are there to make money, not help you" makes me question: where's the democracy in that?
If people thought they were getting screwed out of money they would take their chances and hope they don’t get sick or injured. Seems a bit callous don't you think.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
If insurance companies were there to help premiums would not be as high as they are. They dish out a lot of money every year, and if they didn't have a high incentive to make money they wouldn't provide the service of insurance. It's not a matter of democracy, but economic progress. We all have nice, technologically advanced things and that's because people can make money with their inventions and do just that, make money. I feel like I'm coming off as an asshole but I guess I'm just giving ways to look at it other than what's on the news.
Yep there are profit motives. My point in alluding to democracy is that a system which prides itself on healthy, well educated citizens can not prosper when in-case-shit companies (insurance companies) gouge the market with no responsibility to the public good at all.
How do we solve it? I don't have any strong convictions whether doing away with insurance companies is the way to go, or the other extreme of mandating health insurance as if it's car insurance.
Would you agree that some change in the health care industry or is laissez faire all the way?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
What's wrong with socialism?
Dis-economies of scale...nothing that large can be run properly. Why would you want the government to choose what to make for you?
It seems to work fine in European countries...
Not so much. There is a reason why the US has the best medical system in the world. Profit. Many Europeans come to the US for elective surgeries... Even ones that may save their lives.
-m-
The Brittish System is in shambles. Their Doctors are fleeing Brittain to places like America where they can be fairly compensated.
This leave Brittain scouring the third world for healthcare professionals. And guess what that does to the people of the third world?
And meanwhile the people in Brittain are often told that they are to old or otherwise not healthy enough for a particular treatment and that basically it is time to die. Nice!
I prefer our system,.
You prefer a system well-suited for doctors and insurance companies. The majority of Americans (In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system) and I prefer a system that's swell for consumers.
Did you see the recent PBS analysis of health care in other countries? What do you think about Germany's system? Fair compromise?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
There were similar polls back in the 90's. The devil is in the details. Of course it sounds great when someone offers you free healthcare. So it surprises me not at all that lots of people say they want it. But eventually the facts come out and it turns out that it is not free at all and that in fact everybody gets taxed hard to pay for it. When the details start to come out then we'll see if people still favor it. Back in the 90's it went down to a hard defeat and cost the Democrats Congress. It may turn out differently this time but I don't know. Almost half of the insured that we always hear about are illegal aliens. It is not going to go down well with the public if they find themselves being taxed to provide them insurance.
Facts come out? Try propaganda. Try the healthcare industry, drug companies, the insurance industry come out with a wad of cash for every representative's re-election bid. Try claims that "Shit we're letting a woman reform our healthcare. Shux, that ain't right. She's the first lady. What gives her the balls.
People hear "free" from a tiny squeaky public interest group. Then they hear "socialized medicine" from big business. Crooks.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Socialized medicine )or socialism in general) is not consistent with freedom.
Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to force me to buy into a healthcare system that I have no interest in participating in?
Young people with good health are frequently better served economically by going naked on healthcare. Socialized medicine forces them to participate and essentially taxes them to pay for healthcare for older people. Many of these older people have made bad choices about taking care of their health and nobody but themselves should be responsible for the consequences of those poor choices.
Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to force me to buy into a healthcare system that I have no interest in participating in?
You do realize the government is already forcing you to buy into several hundred programs that you may have no interest in participating in, right? We have welfare, public schooling, social security, etc. The government is also using the American public as piggybanks to bail out major corporations with billions of dollars in loans, most of which may be forgiven given enough time.
Yet, we don't give healthcare to the neediest in our nation.
Young people also should not be going without healthcare, because, as a group, they participate in the riskiest behaviors. This includes skateboarding, mountain climbing, and even running and jogging. In fact, the biggest impact in health insurance costs are the elderly and the young and uninsured.
I am well aware that the Federal Government has greatly overstepped its Constitutional bounds. That is not something I celebrate. I am not in favor of compounding the abuse of our Constitution.
It is because the public has gotten used to having the government solve all their problems that we are used as a piggybank. If we insisted on adherence to the Constitution then that stuff which we both apparently agree is bad would not be happening.
People got sick back when our nation was founded and our founding fathers were well aware of that fact. If they had intended for the government to have any role in healthcare they could easily have written the rights that you are creating from whole cloth into the Constitution. They did not do it and we went close to 200 years before anybody started claiming that was the governments responsibility.
I am well aware that the Federal Government has greatly overstepped its Constitutional bounds.
Isn't this a little naive? You are asking an 18th century document to account for any and all things that might conceivably happen within the next several hundred years? There's just too many things that the founding fathers did not foresee.
The original Constitution also assumed that slavery would continue to exist. Should we take out the amendments and start going back to the 4/10ths rule as well?
They did not do it and we went close to 200 years before anybody started claiming that was the governments responsibility.
Well then, the feds in 1780's also did not tax its citizens and no one claimed back then that the federal government has the authority to tax its citizens. Should we all go back to not paying our federal taxes? I'm all for that. Of course, then there would no federal government.
Anyway, there are just countless items that the Constitution never specifically addressed. In fact, the founders made it such a flexible document specifically because of this. It is up to the People of these United States to determine whether or not we want to address any deficiencies. And one of these is universal healthcare.
There is a process for updating the 18th Century Document. I have no problem with Amendments. If the people want to amend the Constitution to legitimize the things the Federal Government is doing I think that is OK. Have at it. I'll be opposing you but that is just the nature of Democracy
In fact we did write an Amendment to end slavery so the process works.
But until it is amended it should be followed as written. If it is not followed then it becomes meaningless. And when it becomes meaningless we will suddenly find ourselves without rights.
Sometime I get the feeling that the only words in the Constitution that matter to liberals are in the 1st and the 14th Amendments.
allows taxes to be taken in by the government. There is none. This is why some people illegally do not pay taxes.
The Constitution should not be used for social and economic decisions. There is nothing in there about regulating the banking industry, nothing about welfare, and nothing about public schooling. Yet, we cannot deny these are things all governments around the world must consider and regulate. If we put everything we need for a government to function into our Constitution, it would be several thousand pages long and be completely rigid. The reason why our nation works so well is because not everything is so strictly defined in our founding document.
And rapidly, health care has become one of the most important issues affect social stability.
Our health care industry is great only because we deny a third of the nation regular access to health care. Yet, we don't save any money because as a nation that cares about human rights, we treat the indigent and poor in our hospitals. However, since we care more about profit in our health care industries, we only provide just enough care that these poor people don't die, but not enough that we keep them healthy.
We pretend to save money by privatizing, but take a look at socialized medicine in Europe. They have extremely high taxes, but if you break it down just to the amount the average citizen pays for health care, it's more than $3000 less than we pay here. This is because each and every citizen pays for health care. Am I willing to pay less for my health care to give everyone universal health care? Most definitely.
Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to force me to buy into a healthcare system that I have no interest in participating in?
The state has a compelling interest to maintain the health and wellness of its citizens. I submit that a right to life is also guaranteed by the Constitution. Where, in what you perceive to be a callous document, do you not see "Life, Liberty, Property" in the Constitution?
I hope you also realize that the American system is one of the most expensive in the world. My parents and perhaps even you, Jack, pay for people who are uninsured who go through our system. And yet, because it is not single payer, or even a German style insurance system, we have a large percentage that remains uninsured. So... you keep on a payin'.
Bad decisions and taking responsibility for ones actions throughout the course of a lifetime are important. But living in a society that protects its lowest citizens is also important. How do you find a balance?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Where, in what you perceive to be a callous document, do you not see "Life, Liberty, Property" in the Constitution?
Will you please cite the clause of the Constitution that you are talking about?
I'll give you a hint. You'll probably find it in the Declaration of Independence which is an entirely different document from the Constitution. The words are actually life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence is an important historical document. But it is NOT our governing social contract.
You are 100% correct. It is in the Declaration of Indep.
You've probably studied Locke, who said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." That's what the true framer of the words meant 'pursuit of happiness' to mean. I digress.
You didn't address the insurance claim I brought up...
Want a Constitutional clause? Try the elastic clause, or the welfare clause. Single payer systems are an extension of the original document, but I think as the qualities of living in a society expand, it's necessary and proper to promote health. I know, I know, classic liberal argument. But you see it's justified.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." That's what the true framer of the words meant 'pursuit of happiness'
It has been a very long time since I read Locke.
But since you brought it up,....
When you force me into a health care system that I disapprove of you are doing harm to my liberty.
When you compell me to pay for the healthcare of somebody who smokes, lives on frozen pizza and doesn't exercise you are confiscating my money and therefore doing harm to my property.
I am totally in favor of allowing everybody to pursue happiness. Them being free to pursue happiness is a completely different issue from compelling the public to pay for it. I disapprove of attempts to compell me to pay for somebody else's happiness and I think Locke would too. Most of those early liberal (in the classical sense) believed freedom came with personal responsibility such as being responsible for one's own health.
I am not sure which question about an insurance claim you are referring too. If you are talking about the discussion about insurance companies being motivated by profit you are indeed correct. Insurance companies definately are motivated by profits and exist for their own benefit. They do from time to time screw people. But the market is self correcting. If a particular company consistently misbehaves, its customers will go to the competition and the bad actor will cease to earn profits. Their profit motive causes them to maintain decent customer service. And if the market fails then juries tend to be VERY kind to victims and to love screwing insurance companies. Insurance companies know this and as soon as the victim hires a lawyer they almost always settle.
From what I have read you are way better off with private insurance than government insurance. At least you have the option of suing a private country. In socialized medicine countries it is being increasingly common for the government to deny people treatment for reasons like: too old, smoke, poor health, too fat. And there is no appeal against the government. And this is after you have paid your taxes and the premiums which they charge.
"too old, smoke, poor health, too fat."
Yeah, I tend to disagree with that based on the education I've garnered of other countries medical systems. Seems like Hillary's mandated care gig is the least radical in countries like Japan, Canada, BR, Germany, France, Taiwan, the Philippines.
It also seems, from my own personal observance, that other countries have less administrative costs, which makes a more efficient market for consumers.
What do you think our system could improve upon? The insurance company problem I referred to is the problem of the uninsured and their ability to mark up your premiums.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
You are talking about cost shifting. It is not the insurance companies but the hospitals that have engaged in this practice. The government has imposed the totally unfair and completely unfunded mandate on them to provide healthcare to anybody who walks in the door regardless of whether or not they have taken personal responsibility for providing for their own healthcare by either saving money or buying insurance.
To pay for this government imposed mandate, the hospitals shift the cost to the patients that have insurance. They do this by jacking up prices. When you look at your itemized bill you find that a cotton ball costs $10 and and aspirin costs $20 and on and on. If this government imposed mandate was not in place we would not have a healthcare crisis because a cotton ball would only cost a nickel.
The government has created similar cost shifting nightmares for hospitals by only re-imbursing hospitals for things like medicare and medicaid at rates which are below cost. Again the hospitals shift the costs to those of us who have taken responsibility for our own health by buying insurance. We end up paying for our own healthcare plus everybody else's. And the result is that our insurance rates go through the cieling.
I think cost shifting should be illegal and that the government should get out of the healthcare business altogether. You apparently think that the government, which has been the cause of the current fiasco, is somehow the solution.
I think this is completely nuts. I can't think of a single thing our government does either well or efficiently except to collect taxes and wastefully spend money. We have good examples of how the government handles socialized medicine. They are called medicare and medicaid. They are disasters that provide poor healtcare at great cost and are on track to bankrupt us. No thanks!
The government has imposed the totally unfair and completely unfunded mandate on them to provide healthcare to anybody who walks in the door regardless of whether or not they have taken personal responsibility for providing for their own healthcare by either saving money or buying insurance.
So, to understand you better, will you allow people to get sick and die for lack of health care?
If they don't care about their health enough to take responsibility to provide themselves with either savings to pay their bills or provide themselves with insurance then I certainly don't see it as my responsibility.
But recall that health care was affordable in this country until the government stepped in and made a complete hash out of the system. Healthcare was cheap and affordable and it could be again. There is a cash clinic in my town that does not accept insurance of either the private or the government variety. You pay cash on the spot and the cost is about a third of what my regular Doctor charges. People should take responsibility for their own healthcare and if the government would quit messing the system up it would be affordable again.
When I was a teenager in the 1970s the government had heavy regulations on the airline industry and regulated the price of tickets. I live in Wyoming and went to high school in New Hampshire. A roundtrip airline ticket cost my Dad about $500. I sent my daughter to the same school and 30 years later after the deregulation of the airline industry and substantial inflation, a round trip ticket from Wyoming to New Hampshire still cost my about $500.
The moral is that government is the problem, not the solution. Most people would be insured if government was not mucking things up so that insurance is so expensive that most of us can barely afford it and too many can't. I can't understand people who put their trust in an institution that has a long history of doing an awful job of everyting it attempts.
So you believe that rationally self-interested people work more efficiently? That's absolutely swell. Why don't you live in the forest by yourself? Because you're not doing it right now.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
I believe it was you who mentioned that younger people would be better off going "naked" on health insurance farther up the thread. With that in mind, and in light of what you have posted here, I give you this:
Suppose a person of about 20 or so doesn't have health insurance. They get into a major car accident, not because of their own fault, but because of someone else. The accident leaves the 20 year old in critical condition. Since he doesn't have health insurance, what would you expect the hospital to do?
The issue isn't just with the government. The general public would be in an uproar if they found out that they let a person (especially someone who's younger) die by refusing to care for them just because they did not have health insurance, and you can bet, the family of the person would see to it that the public knew.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I believe every state in the USA requires(more about this below) people to have private auto liability insurance. Liability insurance covers damages to persons including medical. If the person who caused the accident was breaking the law then almost all auto liability insurance policies that I am aware of have an uninsured motorist clause so that you are covered by your own insurance.
If they were both breaking the law then I know I for one would not be outraged if the person was allowed to die. I'd favor giving him some morphine to ease the pain as that is not very expensive. I'd even contribute generously to a charity that specialized in making people as comfortable as possible under those circumstances.
As far as mandatory insurance for autos goes, I think that is an idea that could be extended to health insurance. It would be a way of achieving almost universal coverage without the government being involved to screw it up. Generally the rational for forcing people to buy auto insurance is that their accidents impact broader society beyond themselves. Some people say that the same rational does not exist for health insurance as their health effects only them. I have sympathy for this point of view and generally don't favor the government mandating anybody to do anything. But with cost shifting as described in my previous post it does turn out that their behavior does impact other people and I could be convinced that mandatory health insurance was acceptable particularly if people were given a broad range of options and the ability to choose or not choose coverages on a la carte basis and had the option to self insure (along with living or dying with the consequensces of that choice).
If everybody had insurance and particularly if the market was allowed to flourish such that people had choices from the Pinto to the Rolls Royce, then basic health insurance would be cheaper because the pool would be bigger and there would be more healthy people in to it.
Just like the mandatory auto insurance requirement, there would be a certain number of people who chose not to follow the law. For them, I think private charity is the solution. Essentially they would have chosen the self-insurance option and I have no problem with people living with the consequences of their choices.
There is a very small percentage of our society that for reasons beyond their control, Downs Syndorme for example, that would be uninsurable. I think a highly subsidized insurance pool for this VERY small group would be appropriate.
We end up paying for our own healthcare plus everybody else's. And the result is that our insurance rates go through the cieling.
I'm glad that you saw the point of my argument. I don't think many people realize this.
I believe we'll be more successful and more productive if Americans adopt the idea of mutual interest: a society works more efficiently at every level if the work force is healthy. I suppose that's where we fundamentally disagree.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
A healthy workforce is fne. I have no problem with that.
But to use the word "efficiently" in a blog where you are taling about turning our healthcare over to perhaps the most inefficient and wasteful organization on earth is a joke.
Yep, the result of a healthy society is a more efficient labor force. I thought you might key in on that word.
I'm not going to argue that government does business efficiently. That's not what I'm explaining at all, because that's not its purpose.
Seeing the examinations of the health systems of other countries has opened my eyes to the possibility. I've noticed that their governments effectively promote (through a carrot at the end of the stick for doctors) wellness as opposed to prevention.
This plays into your arguement that a person who has lived his life well (he's fit, well nourished, and has a lifestyle that provides security in old age) is forced by their damn gov'ment to pay for unstable people who have not lived healthy lives and must now undergo surgery or P.T. or whatever...
A system that encourages doctors who are able to convince their clients to, for example, quit smoking is a system of wellness. This is a simple example and surely many American doctors advocate such a change in lifestyle to their patients. But do you know of a doctor who is paid by an insurance company for such an advocation?
Essentially this encourages wellness while discouraging the profit aquired by the prevention of diseases that can be avoided. I'd rather the former, you know. From what I know, our system isn't quite inspired by this theory--- one that places people's health (which turns into efficient workforce) above profit.
The Big Picture: you don't have a society made up of individuals who visit the doctor only when they're sick because they're afraid of the bill. You have a single-payer system that provides wellness so the society can generate profit in more important sectors and health is a right. The single-payer insures it.
"The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?"
You wrote a lot of words without saying anything very specific. But it sounded like you were saying that in order to encourage wellness you approved of actions like I have recently heard the British Government is doing where people who have been taxed to pay for healthcare and have paid premiums in to their national healthcare system are denied needed treatment because they smoke.
The nanny state takes their money and denies them healthcare all in the name of being healthy. Great!
That's interesting. That's sure something we could improve upon, huh. Where did you find that?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
British Healthcare outrages
If you scroll down a bit you'll find the article about somers being denied treatement. And cancer patients being denied treatement. An fat people being denied treatement. etc, etc. etc.
I read through that list. And now I wonder, what percentage of Brits dig their system?
I think this article is fairly revealing... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DF133CF936A25751C0A...
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?