Hedons

If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

Here is an article which zeros right in on the crux of the matter.

The Myth of Efficient Government Service - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

-Hedons

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

sput·nik

gee, thanks for the borrowed (and incredibly generic) free-market philosophy, of which the principal tenets completely fail to analyze the true source of the current "wastefulness" in the American health insurance industry.



it's always convenient to be a libertarian when you are already rich, white, and educated...

__________________

and those who were seen dancing
were thought to be insane
by those who could not hear the music . . .

JcP

I don't understand why people are fighting to prevent other people from having access to a government option. If you believe in competition, why are you trying to deny the government (regardless of what you think about it) from competing?

In essence, is the fear that the public option won't work...or is the fear that the public option WILL work?

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

Hedons

This thread isn't about the current wastefulness in the American health care insurance industry, It is, as the title suggests about the incredibly generic free-market principles which analyze many of the sources of government wastefulness.

Government takes more and more as it inches into more and more corners of our lives; it never does with less. Government is a cancer, and no, Liberterians are not the cure, unless you consider laughter to be good medicine.

The more control you give to the government and the more dependent you become on the government, the fewer rights you will have.

-Hedons

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

JcP

without government, I would have no rights. So, a bit of a catch 22.

Look, I'm not in favor of zomg big government running everything, but for necessary services like healthcare, infrastructure, defense, etc. I think it serves a valuable purpose.
I also think a communal ownership of necessary commodities like oil, gas, electricity, water, etc. should also be put into place.

I guess I'm a democratic socialist at heart. I agree that government often is "the problem," but I also believe that government can be the solution sometimes too.

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

Hedons

The government does not and cannot compete with the private sector due to it's inherent inefficiencies (see article).

Picture this scenario...

Government Option becomes law... system chugs along for a few years, everything appears peachy to those with the rose colored glasses. As the smoke begins to clear and the mirrors eventually fall and break, the reality seeps through that the money isn't there to support this program. The programs runs into the red the debt begins to pile on and you're left with options such as raising taxes, lowering the quality of service, increasing the inflation rate, etc... not good options. But since the masses already have their government option you can't go taking that away. The only way to keep the government option afloat and able to compete with the private sector is to subsidize it and you can guess where that money will come from.

Does that type of sound like competition?



Again, a subsidized government option is not free market competition.



A government option has unlimited resources to keep it afloat regardless of it's gross and inherent inefficiencies . These unlimited resources include raising taxes, lowering the quality of service, increasing inflation, etc.


-Hedons

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

sput·nik

you know I figured you might be atleast willing to dive into the specifics for a moment, but instead you have just continued to spit out more (generic!) drivel. do you feel like you have a solid understanding of historic precedents for your opinion on this matter, or is it just more of an all-around belief based on what you read and see happening out your office (or is it a lab?) window everyday? I think, without question, there is a "boogeyman" mentality run amok here, but it'd be nice to know if there is any personal element to what you're saying..

have you even been following the different cost-analyses that have been taking place? do you have an opinion, specifically, about the CBO report?

surely you also understand that private companies are currently subsidized? do you know how much they received from the government for generating this "free" swine flu vaccine? do you even understand how the medicare system works? we can also stray entirely from the medical field if your aim here isn't just to discuss health care reform..


I have fears about big government too.. I think any rational person has their fair share.

but throwing this article out and expecting it to be some sort of bomb in the current reality of our socio-political environment is silly because it so blatantly fails to address the concerns as they presently exist. it conveniently ignores the problems of the "free" market, the most important of which is that the private sector leaves poor people behind, and a society supposedly built upon these principles ends up doing exactly the same thing.

__________________

and those who were seen dancing
were thought to be insane
by those who could not hear the music . . .

msicidron

government defines your rights, where it doesn't restrict you, so yeah without it there would be no restrictions and thus no "rights"...

__________________

JcP

....if the public option lowers quality of service people wouldn't choose it. If private institutions offered similar coverage for less, people would choose that. If taxes are raised too high, people wouldn't be able to afford it. this example, imho, fails.
You're using a strawman here. This is indeed a possibility. But so are countless possible ways in which this program will succeed.
And if "the masses" have health insurance at an affordable rate, if the private sector wishes to compete, they can lower their prices. If they don't want to, then fuck the private sector. I don't need my jalapeno cheedar cheese flown in from Italy. Government cheese is just fine, thank you. Of course there are still plenty of rich people who think the flown in cheese tastes better. They'll always have "platinum" plans if you want it.
What you are saying is that if the public option is appealing, people might choose it! And if people choose it, there will be debt!
As opposed to private institutions which people CANNOT choose (they choose the people), and cause people who DO choose it to go INTO debt.

Again, I think that's b.s.


So do private institutions. Namely denying service for "preexisting conditions," cherrypicking who they cover, refusing "experimental" treatment, and price gauging.
And goddamnit, I'll take a higher tax rate if millions of people can get chemo.

Look, if the private sector of insurance would cover everyone regardless, I would see no need for any of this. The basic point is that healthcare should NOT be something denied to people because of how many bills they have in their wallet. And until I hear an alternate "private" plan that forces insurance companies to 1)cover everyone, 2) be affordable to everyone, and 3) remove restrictions, go go public option!

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

verklingen

hit the nail on the head. i used to beg and plead for a rational opposition to the prospect of a public health insurance option. now i realize i'll never get it because the opposition is not rational.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Hedons

I didn't read the report, but have heard some analysis of it.

Do you think this is a fair analysis of the CBO report?

-Hedons

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

Hedons

I can relate to what you're saying...

A friend of mine got into an automobile accident last week.

He was uninsured.

The next day he called several insurance companies to get insurance to cover the accident.

They all told him to take a hike; said the damage was pre-existing and that if he purchased insurance that his accident would not be covered.

He too was outraged that they would deny him service for "preexisting conditions" and that the insurance company could cherrypick who they cover.

-Hedons

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

Ego Tripping

We don't pay attention to other countries other than us...we're too far evolved.

__________________

verklingen

this makes you sound like an idiot and god it really pisses me off that something so stupid would be said

Rape is a pre-existing condition?

Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?



my mother in law has bone cancer (5th round of what has become a life-long cancer battle) and a chronic low blood cell count. she was getting a weekly treatment to help her body produce more blood cells, but now her insurance is denying the treatment. because of this she hardly has the energy to go shopping, even with a wheelchair. her days have always been "numbered" but now she's feeling it and you can tell it weighs heavily on her. to hell with these insurance companies and to hell with your ridiculous example.

really that you would say some stupid shit like that in the face of real concerns affecting millions of our peers is sickening. i used to think highly of you based on conversations in transcendental thc and having a kickass avatar. it's hard even respecting you after this show.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JcP

If this is a true story, I'd imagine your friend would be far more outraged at his inability to have affordable coverage in the first place which put him into the position he finds himself in now.
If this is some sort of straw man (again) I'm, like Verk, surprised with you.

Capitalism in the private sector says that these healthcare companies are supposed to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. That's their job. To run their companies as efficiently as possible and to have as little expense as possible.
This model is completely wrong for a service involving human lives. my health to private insurance companies is nothing more than a COMMODITY. That is wrong wrong wrong. And its proven itself wrong.

anyway, I hope this was a true story (in terms of you, not your friend) and you just have a "weak" pre-existing-condition story to express the point.

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

Hedons

I mirrored back what I though you had said to me to illustrate what I consider an absurdity.

It is absurd to expect or require an insurance company to issue a policy to to cover a pre-existing condition. That is "not insurance". I will say though that insurance companies with their slush funds are a bunch of filthy whores grouped right up there next to politicians and tort lawyers.

If healthcare costs are going to be reasonable and managed, a good place to start would be tort reform. Why isn't one of the primary things that has driven up the cost of healthcare being addressed in healthcare proposals?

President Obama has talked about cutting wasted healthcare spending. Why aren't there proposed bills which addresses "defensive medicine" (doctors ordering extra and arguably unnecessary tests to protect themselves from costly lawsuits)?

I've said it before but I'll say it again just to be clear. The system sucks. My wife and I have had a decent dose of dealing with it last year and the two years leading up to the loss of her father to lung cancer. Yeah it sucks. But to expect the government to come in, wave the magic legislation/tax/inflation/debt/bureaucracy wand to make things better in the long run is beyond me.

I think it was best summed up when someone characterized a national health care plan as having the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal Service and the pricing structure of a Pentagon toilet seat.

I apologize for coming across as some uncompassionate jerk; I assure you I am not.

I'm just really fucking angry. (and it's not at you)

-Hedons

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

Flamingnun

Right, because no country in the world has a functional efficient free healthcare system.

__________________

Ego Tripping

Why people, including intelligent people like yourself, insist to think that's what the bill and reform is proposing is beyond me.

__________________

verklingen

how about providing a rational argument instead of a sarcastic anecdote?

it is absurd within the framework of our current for-profit system, because reducing expenditure is as good as getting paid. but that paradigm is absurd within the framework of a country who wants to compete in a world that's passing it by. the question is not whether insurers should accept pre-existing conditions but whether we as a country would willingly blunt the mettle of our workforce by forcing those with pre-existing conditions to deal and either be unable to work as a result or so hopelessly in debt that their work is fruitless.

like jcp said, why is it not equally absurd to you that health is treated as a commodity?

who will oversee and make decisions on this tort reform, and how will it be implemented? the tort issue is itself a symptom of the same health-as-commodity problem. tort reform is a retroactive bandage; the root of the problem is left unaddressed

edit- sput hit on that up top, ego. definite boogieman at work

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

farmergiles

That is more or less what happened when the NHS was created.

__________________
Cultivate a stoic calmness