Texas Considers Medicaid Withdrawal

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Nope, never said the government has the "best" way to solving the problem. However private healthcare companies have had more than enough time to prove they can provide healthcare for all, and instead what did they do? .

Provide insurance to over 60% of the nation while not being allowed to offer insurance policies across state lines (compete), dealing with inflating pharmaceutical costs, fraud, etc.

There isn't a free market healthcare system in the U.S. - There is only some freakishly weird relationship between healthcare providing corporations and more government regulations than patients.

But it is. Healthcare costs have risen faster than income in the last 10years:
www.reuters.com...

Doesn't matter. 27% of the uninsured live at 300% over the poverty level.

The amount of businesses offering healthcare packages actually decreased by 10% between 2001-2007 because of rising costs:

You seem to be implying this is the fault of the Health Insurance companies.

In addition to this you have millions of retirees and families who are employed by businesses who are uncovered, what about them huh?

What about them?

There are things called charities, for starters. The government is not a charity organization - certainly not the federal government. If a state wishes to turn its tax revenue into providing for the living of its citizens, then it is more than welcome to financially implode.

What about people who are unemployed who can't buy a car? What kind of barbaric society doesn't allow its people the method of transportation almost essential to search for and maintain a job and freedom?

Local governments should be the ones to decide how to best solve this problem in their area. That means you - go to the city counsel, write your district representative to the state, or go wave a sign - whatever floats your boat. You solve the problem for your area, and another area solves the problem in a way that works for them.

An estimated 30% of employers do not offer healthcare coverage. If healthcare corporations maximize profits by implementing conditions of coverage such as pre-existing conditions, what on earth makes you think they'll take in something like 30 million folks over the age of 65 years? Oh we'll just let them die off right?

The uninsured are more likely to work in small firms than in large firms. Those in firms with less than 100 employees and their children comprise almost half of the uninsured (46%).(12) Small firms, particularly those with fewer than 10 workers, are much less likely to offer insurance — only 52% of such very small firms offer coverage compared to 99% of firms with more than 200 employees.(13) The family income of those who work in small firms is also somewhat less than those in large firms, as workers in firms with fewer than 10 employees have median family incomes of about $53,000 while workers in firms with more than 1,000 employees have median family incomes of about $65,000.(14)

So, while 99% of firms with more than 200 employees offer corporate insurance - 17% of the uninsured are employed by firms with more than 1000 employees.

What gives?

In any case - no, most insurance companies would not extend coverage to pre-existing conditions and the elderly would be given special packages to buy into (no business would ignore the potential to take on even a small fraction of a 30 million customer base). Others would allow family plans to extend to cover parents/grandparents.

Like I said - transition sucks. I'm not going to say the solution is to "just let them die off" (I would like to see the research that demonstrates a significant number of those 65+ have their quality of life preserved for any significant length of time by health insurance) - presuming a lack of healthcare coverage and mortality are intrinsically linked, for a moment. Everyone will search for solutions to ease the transition.

However - if your argument against transitioning away from government run social programs revolves around 'not letting the elderly die off' - you're delusional. Start making your peace with anyone over 40 - the chances they will simply not wake up the next morning only get exponentially greater from there. We get old and die - it's part of life. By time I was 21, I no longer had parents - one from cancer, another just didn't wake up for whatever reason. I never knew my grandpa on my father's side... and I any time I get a phone call, I wonder if it's news of my mother's father passing away, or my father's mother. Both of them are at that age - and I've talked about it with both of them. I talked about it with my father after losing my mother - not that I ever expected the day to come when he would depart.

On another note - if you're 65+ and don't have a will and your beneficiaries up to date (don't leave life insurance policies to your deceased wife - particularly if you have debts to your estate) - you need to get that stuff in order. You can't stave off death by procrastinating anymore than I can - you just started the march before I did.

Half a million people denied coverage just within a two year period. But hey, I can make that number go away! 500,000 of 300 million = 0.0016%

That's 250,000 in a 12 month period.



And, really, if you want to instate federal legislation or programs to cover for a mere 500,000 people - you're flat out insane. That is not what the federal government is for. If a state wishes to extend or deny coverage, that is their prerogative. However, 500,000 is a drop in the bucket. More people die from car accidents or sexually transmitted diseases - far more simple problems to resolve than healthcare.

Ah who cares right? its only 0.0016%. Tough luck.

I'm not saying I don't care. I'm simply saying that I don't know those people, and am therefor not inclined to help them through government programs that mandate my charity. If I run across someone who needs help, I will take it upon myself to help them.

Ah yes, so we'll let millions of the elderly, poor, and those children suffer because, well, thats life right? Well I am sorry that you are so heartless at the current situation of this nation, clearly you are concerned over your own self right.

I'm technically of the "uninsured" who would "benefit" from national healthcare.

The idea of taking money from the government sickens me. It is an insult to my personal capability and my family.

I do enjoy the attempt to assassinate my character. I must be a heartless person who only cares about myself because I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to help people. It's not really a character assassination so much as it is just slander - it's so predictable that it is never successful. In either case - I believe it is up to each individual to look out for those around them.

The "problem" with America is our over-value of personal space. When you go over to other countries, people will often go out of their way to help you. We had a Korean help us lost Americans find the right airport (we landed at one airport and had to bus over to another airport... we ignored our Enlisted senses and followed an officer.... thus getting lost) - people in Europe will pull you into/off of trains as a sort of team effort. Personal space stops at their skin - ours extends as far as our ego will allow.

Get involved with other people. You will be amazed at what the "underground" world can provide. There are two major resources in life - how much money you have, and who you know (or how many people you know).

Well it's ganna cost you and me buddy, it already has mind you. It costs the country $125 billion a year because of those individuals who are uninsured and this excludes medicare and medicaid costs:

In a normal business - individuals who use a product or service without the ability to pay for it are guilty of theft or fraud.

It's costing the average american family 8% of their spending on healthcare. But you know, "butterflies, rainbows and unicorns". If you would rather fit part of the bill for the folks who had been uncovered and who have either died or are suffering as opposed to paying part of the bill to get those covered, thats your mentality.

Medicare easily gets hit with $200B in fraud each year. Let's extend that coverage more liberally and make it easier to file fraudulent claims. The costs in fraud will easily overcome any savings potential in granting coverage to the uninsured.

Ah yes, so along with healthcare corporations rightfully rising up premiums, we should lift safety regulations on pharmaceuticals so we can let them run a muck. But let the corporations think in our best interests.

The fact that I try to educate the obviously hopeless must say something about my personality. I'm not sure what, though.

Relaxing regulation on pharmaceuticals would radically reduce price by allowing competition from foreign manufacturers (who produce perfectly safe medication) and making it easier for businesses to enter the pharmaceutical market.

You're the type that likes to blame corporations for monopolies - but the current monopoly on pharmaceuticals is all completely orchestrated by the federal government. Real companies have profit margins between 2% and 5%. I presume you will need to be told what a profit margin is. Profit is what is left after your total business revenue has the costs of operating deducted (costs of making product, paying employees, etc). Pharmaceuticals have a profit margin of 10%. The -only- reason they can have such high profit margins revolves around the fact that the process for allowing medications to be sold in the U.S. is a very lengthy process. It would take years for a prospective pharmaceutical company to be able to start producing a competing product at a 5% profit margin (less price, same thing). That's simply not practical and there's no real potential in starting a pharmaceutical company in the U.S. with the objective to sell to Americans. Period. This means larger companies are secure in their market and can hike prices to the limit of what the market will bear.

In short - many government regulations (which have little/nothing to do with drug safety) prohibit new companies from starting up and rivaling the prices, quality, methods, and market of large companies in existence, today. Thus, pharmaceuticals often make a whopping 100-400% more in profit than businesses dealing with market competition. The only way to address the problem is to remove the inhibiting factors.

No one from the government certified the virus scan you are using. No one from the government certified your operating system as safe for you to use. No one from the government certified the encryption system your bank uses to secure your financial information.

Why get all paranoid and expect businesses to forego the safety of their customers (who are often returning ones)? Quit buying into the lie that corporations will kill you and steal your wallet. You're much more valuable alive, healthy, and working - more money and time for you to spend on a company's products. Making you unhealthy is bad business - unless you're one of the only ones making said product in the nation.

reply to post by babybunnies


It's SECEDE, not succeed!

I'm not surprised at the horrible level of grammar on this site.

reply to post by babybunnies


I don't buy it. Elderly people are a powerful voting bloc. You try to take away Medicare, etc from them and you will pay at the polls.

My grandmother would never join the Tea Party.

Just look at what it cost the VA per veteran for the health care at the VA.

Its less then 1/4 of what everyone else pays out side of the VA system.

And this is while treating large numbers of veterans with conditions related to agent orange. Gulf war syndrome. traumatic brain injuries and other medical problems that doctors outside the VA seldom every see or know how to treat.

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

At the VA hospital i go to i get top doctors from UCLA and if i am traveling i can walk into any VA hospital in the US and the doctors can pull up my medical records on the computer right there any time.
Any one specialist can pull up test and records from any of the doctors i have been to and not have to run needless tests.
my primary care doctor can check the finding and recommendations of the specialist i have been to and continue treatment that is specifically tailored to the medical problems i have.

The open system medicare/medicaid system has been robbed by criminal organizations, doctors,and companies for there own gain. more profits go into the insurance companies and the hospitals pockets then is used for your care.

The VA medical system is a closed system,
Veterans get there medications, medical supplies, and other medical needs from within the VA medical system.
This is the biggest secret of the system. and it protects the VA from the cost of fraud and abuse
They can and do get everything used by the VA medical at discount rates because the VA buys everything in volume.
These is why thing are cheaper a stores like Costco because they get a discount for buying in volume.

There are many other ways that the VA saves money.
I had a heart attack and 5 way bypass surgery at the VA.
I drove myself home 7 days later and because they use a high tech skin closures instead of staples or sutures to close the skin on my chest and leg i did not have to go back to have them removed. ONE doctors visit less and less cost to the system.

For those that think the government can not run health care you can stay with your system and i will stay with the VA care i get.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Provide insurance to over 60% of the nation while not being allowed to offer insurance policies across state lines (compete), dealing with inflating pharmaceutical costs, fraud, etc.

There isn't a free market healthcare system in the U.S. - There is only some freakishly weird relationship between healthcare providing corporations and more government regulations than patients.

Are you saying you want to allow healthcare companies to sell across statelines? If you are arguing in allowing insurance companies to be able to do so, those laws restricting those corporations by state lines never stopped them expanding their services across statelines, they are just bound by different laws. You have many healthcare insurers such as Blue shield who have expanded across many states and who serve millions of people. Nothing really stopped them.

This article from MotherJones also puts it good:

The basic problem with this proposal, of course, is pretty simple. If you allow health insurance policies to be sold across state lines, states would start competing for insurance industry business by writing ever friendlier regulations. Eventually some small state will win this contest with an absurdly lax regulatory regime, and every insurance company in America will set up shop there. Essentially, the entire country would be forced to accept whatever pro-industry rules that, say, Wyoming decides to write for the rest of us. Do the citizens of all the other states really want to cede that power to Wyoming?

motherjones.com...

Doesn't matter.

Nope, you just don't care. But thanks for being more upfront about it than others.

You seem to be implying this is the fault of the Health Insurance companies.

Well they have been jacking up their prices faster than family income. It is simply their doing.

There are things called charities, for starters.

If charities were effective we would not be having this issue at this moment. Charities do exist already, you know.

The government is not a charity organization

The government can work in one function and the country and can be free to run a muck in everything else. It's worked wonders for Somalia.

What about people who are unemployed who can't buy a car?

A car is not a matter of life or death. A car is not a necessity to get work. A car is not a necessity to the function of life. The two are not comparable.

In any case - no, most insurance companies would not extend coverage to pre-existing conditions and the elderly would be given special packages to buy into

Yep, "would be". There is nothing stopping healthcare insurers from doing this now, they choose not to. They had a good chance under the Bush administration and even under the Reagan administration during attempts to privatize medicare and medicaid, they were not interested then and are not interested now. It's unpofitable to them so don't try to rationalize the advantages for people. Clearly there will not be any, but then again you don't care apparently.

We get old and die - it's part of life.

Yep, it's like.

If your a child born with a pre-existing condition, "that's life, its the free market". Being inflicked with life threatening diseases or being caught out in a low wage job is a matter of life. I suppose we should just eliminate government overall and just leave society to nature right? Survival of the fittest.

That is not what the federal government is for.

It is my understanding that the government is for looking out for the interests of this nation. If healthcare is costing this country this is where the federal government is most needed.

I must be a heartless person who only cares about myself

Well yes you are, I mean "it's just life" in your opinion. Let nature take it's course and thats your argument. But please, shape it in anyway you want.

In a normal business - individuals who use a product or service without the ability to pay for it are guilty of theft or fraud.

So instead of preventing people from being caugh in sickness, in a hospital and unable to pay, we just let it be, let this continue to cost us billions and play it off as just crime? It a wonder why we are in debt. We just turn the other eye.

You're the type that likes to blame corporations for monopolies - but the current monopoly on pharmaceuticals is all completely orchestrated by the federal government. Real companies have profit margins between 2% and 5%.

Government and corporations work hand in hand so I will agree with you to some extent, but then again our laws in this country allow that to happen. Our laws make way for such a relationship to flourish, such laws as unlimited campaign spending, the right for lobbyists to petition. We allow for this relationship to happen so it is inevitable and corporations willingly participate when given the chance. They are the backbone behind the decisions of the government, not the other way around.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Taking quotes out of context is hardly becoming of you. You are perfectly capable of using your brain to debate on behalf of your standpoint without resorting to such childish measures. It's not cute - it's rude and causes bloody noses (well, outside of e-world, that is).

Essentially, the entire country would be forced to accept whatever pro-industry rules that, say, Wyoming decides to write for the rest of us. Do the citizens of all the other states really want to cede that power to Wyoming?

This is silly. People get along just fine with their computer software, don't they? Industry standards are, typically, a good thing - especially when they come about due to competition and not due to arbitrary government actions.

I really couldn't care what website you pull that argument from - their assertion is ... what is the word... scaremongering? It has no basis in fact, research, or historical precedent.

I'll ignore your blatantly childish attempts at trawling (though your posting record suggests nothing but a trawl).

Well they have been jacking up their prices faster than family income. It is simply their doing.

This is like blaming Walmart for hiking their prices on copper products when copper prices go through the roof. The cost of healthcare has been rising disproportionately to family income - the cost of insurance is going to have to go up along with it. The problem is the healthcare providers, not the insurance companies (their goal is to keep premiums as low as possible and thereby achieve market dominance - you can turn a greater profit with 70% of the share at 3% profit than you can 30% of the market share at 5% profit).

If charities were effective we would not be having this issue at this moment. Charities do exist already, you know.

If you do not spend any of your time working with charities or for charitable causes - then you have no right to claim they do not work. I've spent plenty of time volunteering for charities, and will continue to do so, because it is part of my responsibility to the community.

The government can work in one function and the country and can be free to run a muck in everything else. It's worked wonders for Somalia.

And socialism is working wonders for Europe. Communism has worked excellently for every country that uses it. Communists were so awesome at governing that the government couldn't contain that amount of awesome and simply exploded into poverty-induced revolution.

A car is not a matter of life or death. A car is not a necessity to get work. A car is not a necessity to the function of life. The two are not comparable.

Please demonstrate how health insurance is a life and death issue. I do not have health insurance. I am quite clearly alive. I am relatively healthy, too - and it is very likely that I will remain quite healthy barring some instance where I am injured. Which is why I have a thing called a savings account.

I could die tomorrow for any reason under the sun. I honestly couldn't care less. Insurance isn't going to keep me alive or prevent me from dying. Sure - it helps to some degree, but it's by no means a life-and-death issue. It means I don't run off to the doctor with every itchy eye and runny nose I get.

Yep, "would be". There is nothing stopping healthcare insurers from doing this now, they choose not to.

You're daft. Insurance companies offer policies for all ages. However, all you have to do is look at a damned graph and you can see that only 1% of those 65+ is uninsured. Why is this? Medicare and Medicaid.

HMM.... I wonder why private plans are somewhat rarer at 65+ years of age? Most are supplement plans to medicare/medicaid - because both suck.

It's unpofitable to them so don't try to rationalize the advantages for people. Clearly there will not be any, but then again you don't care apparently.

Where there are people with money to spend, so, too, will there be a product and/or service to spend it on to tickle every fancy.

If your a child born with a pre-existing condition, "that's life, its the free market". Being inflicked with life threatening diseases or being caught out in a low wage job is a matter of life. I suppose we should just eliminate government overall and just leave society to nature right? Survival of the fittest.

And what is this child going to do? Grow up to be a promiscuous child factory?

Look at your demographics. Many mentally ill people are homeless. Giving them a home is not going to make them less mentally ill or more functional. We tried this with ... other ... demographics back in the 60s, and a number of words meaning "dirty people" came of the way those housing projects were treated by the "unfortunate."

I've got no problems with protecting life. When I take it upon myself to look after someone - I look after them. But I do not see it as my place to try and project my will through the government. I wish I could save every little kid out there - to give them the kind of environment they need to learn to make responsible decisions and be productive members of society. But it's not my place to do that. It's not my place to make the government do that. It is my place to do what I can for those I meet in life.

You want to be progressive? THAT is progressive. Not this lazy "let's make our taxes pay for it" nonsense. If you want to be charitable, then pony up and be charitable. If you're not willing to do that, then you have no place to demand it of others or try to guilt trip others with a fiddle of heart-strings.

It is my understanding that the government is for looking out for the interests of this nation. If healthcare is costing this country this is where the federal government is most needed.

And how, exactly, is the government going to solve the rising costs of healthcare? Set arbitrary cost standards for healthcare - kind of like an inverse of minimum wage? MRIs can't cost more than $50 - but X-rays can cost $600 (successful lobby was successful). That's the kind of stuff that will happen if you let Congress get involved. Don't believe me? Look at every market they regulate and the kick-backs to lobbyists and campaign contributors.

Giving the government control gives monopolies more control, in case you haven't really noticed this in your blind hatred of corporations.

So instead of preventing people from being caugh in sickness, in a hospital and unable to pay, we just let it be, let this continue to cost us billions and play it off as just crime? It a wonder why we are in debt. We just turn the other eye.

If you are hungry and you steal food - it's still a crime.

If you want to know why this country is in debt - it has to do with 50% of our national spending going to medicare and social benefit programs. Then you should research fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration (and FHA insured loans), and the housing market burst. While you're at it - research the average American credit card debt. Per capita - we have $30,000 in credit card debt last I checked. That's not government deficit - that's personal spending.

It's not about turning a blind eye. It's about allowing ourselves to become complacent and dependent upon economic phantasms.

Government and corporations work hand in hand so I will agree with you to some extent, but then again our laws in this country allow that to happen. Our laws make way for such a relationship to flourish, such laws as unlimited campaign spending, the right for lobbyists to petition. We allow for this relationship to happen so it is inevitable and corporations willingly participate when given the chance. They are the backbone behind the decisions of the government, not the other way around.

If you think the government is any less concerned with power, then you are truly a fool. The government seeks to extend and expand its influence just like any other living entity on the planet. It is only natural that government and corporations would find themselves in strong alliances and fierce clashes. There are two ideological methods to handle it. The first is to give government all of the power and believe in their benevolent and sensible rule.

There's yet to be a precedent established to believe that is ever going to happen. That leaves the other ideological method:

Remove the government as completely as possible from business affairs. The government should be involved primarily in litigation of contract disputes and cases of criminal activity/neglect. While this does mean some businesses will "run amok" - this concept is self-checking. Monopolies are notoriously ponderous and slow to adapt - new businesses will easily overtake future generations of the market (until they become monopolies and begin to decline in the face of newer businesses).

Now - before you bust a blood vessel, let's think about this for a minute. We ditch medicare. Dear Heavens, Alive, people are without health insurance and the world is coming to an end right before our eyes. However, crafty Mayor West opens up bids on a contract to provide health insurance for seniors in the local area. The government pays the contract and the seniors get healthcare from the company that wins the contract. Because the company is operating off of local government funding (no magical printing press), it is constrained to finite resources and therefor must operate efficiently (something agencies with access to a printing press seem to be horrible at). Bids are made, and the competition is decided - senior citizens now have health insurance just in time to let out a joyous cheer and deflect the doomsday asteroid that would certainly have killed us all.

Dry humor is so much more refreshing than games of selective quoting "what, you like balls?!"

Originally posted by Aim64C
This is like blaming Walmart for hiking their prices on copper products when copper prices go through the roof.

And this is why healthcare should not be a completely privatized system. Peoples lives are being played off as profit and in the end there will those who will suffer from it. Pharmacutical companies rise prices, they do so for profit, not because of the conditions of the industry. Healthcare companies follow suit.

You'd have to ask yourself that if prices continue to rise faster than income, who the hell is going to stop it? You talk about further deregulation, your claims go no further than speculation. The united states is the only country in the western world with the type of healthcare system in place, no other western country has the majority of it's citizens under a privatized system of healthcare, yet we are what? 38th in the world for healthcare? Our expenditure on healthcare is more in proportion to our GDP, the costs of healthcare exceed other western nations, we are below costa rica for healthcare overall? So what's going on here? More deregulation you say? Sounds like a stubborn approach to what is clearly obvious when we compare ourselves to all other countries.

The problem is the healthcare providers, not the insurance companies (their goal is to keep premiums as low as possible and thereby achieve market dominance - you can turn a greater profit with 70% of the share at 3% profit than you can 30% of the market share at 5% profit).

This is in theory, that insurers aim to keep their premiums lower, and yet they continue to rise these premiums dramatically. You are once again speculating.

If you do not spend any of your time working with charities or for charitable causes - then you have no right to claim they do not work.

Nope, did not say that charities do not work, they are not the solution to the problem. Clearly there are charities that help families through their needs, but this argument that charities will assist the millions out there caught without healthcare, well you only have reality to point to as evidence don't you? Unless people don't know about the existence of these other charities? Is that your theory? That there are mysterious charities just waiting to be contacted?

Healthcare charities are also declining around the country:
hschange.org...

And socialism is working wonders for Europe.

Well why don't we compare the two?

European countries spend per capita between $3000 to $4000 per capita. The United States spends more than $6000.

European Union spends a third less over it's GDP on healthcare compared to the United states.

Australia? New Zealand? Don't let me get started there.

Life expectancy? Please, go and have a look for yourself.

Sure, European countries like Greece and Portugal and co. are having their own financial issues however this has been due to the excessive deregulation and borrowing these countries have carried out during those years. Their economies were closely pegged to the United states, as with virtually all European countries.

So don't talk to me about socialism because clearly the United States has no place to talk where it stands.

Communism

Communism is an unworkable system. Next.

Please demonstrate how health insurance is a life and death issue. I do not have health insurance. I am quite clearly alive.

That's because you're not in need of medical attention, or you have not been refused by a medical institute to seek treatment for a pre-existing condition. Not everybody is in the same position as you. I don't need a car to get to work, I can take the bus. What I do need is my inhaler so that I could get through work for the day and pay my bills. Without it I cannot function.

I am relatively healthy, too

Again, your own personal situation.

You're daft. Insurance companies offer policies for all ages.

Those insurance companies that do offer it at a price, more so than younger individuals. Often elderly people are caught out with pre-existing conditions.

Where there are people with money to spend, so, too, will there be a product and/or service to spend it on

In a perfect world those people will be able to spend that much. You are right, if everybody could afford a Ford F 140 truck, there would be no issue, unless ofcourse the prices of those trucks rise to compete.

If you want to know why this country is in debt - it has to do with 50% of our national spending going to medicare and social benefit programs.

And yet we have millions of people unqualified for these programmes who are costing this nation an additional $100 billion a year. There is something wrong with our system of healthcare, but it's not the government programmes. The majority of the population is insured by private companies and yet we have millions of people who cannot seem to get in anywhere. Insurance companies had a good chance to completely privatize medicare and medicaid during the last administration and during the Reagan administration, they chose not to play ball, that says alot to me about their agenda and motives.

If you think the government is any less concerned with power, then you are truly a fool.

Oh yes, so those senators and representitives up there in DC care more about status than lobbyist money? Really? Money is power, money talks and so do lobbyists.

The government seeks to extend and expand its influence just like any other living entity on the planet.

Ofcourse, because the corporations are willing to pay them. The invasion of Iraq war not merely of nation interests, it was in the interests of Bush's oil buddies and the oil industry. The public option failed to get through government last year because Democrats, many of them, were heavily lobbied and paid by healthcare corporations. Money is always first on the list, "power" is just a side plate.

The government pays the contract and the seniors get healthcare from the company that wins the contract.

Hold on? Government pays the contract? Now what's the word I'm looking for?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

And this is why healthcare should not be a completely privatized system. Peoples lives are being played off as profit and in the end there will those who will suffer from it. Pharmacutical companies rise prices, they do so for profit, not because of the conditions of the industry. Healthcare companies follow suit.

This is exactly why a privatized system should handle the costs of health care.

I'm not sure what market is your fancy - if you're a food kind of person, a computer person, sports, etc - I'm not really sure how to hold your hand through this basic concept of economics. However - food is a fairly standard universal that most people can relate to.

Almost every town has a McDonald's and a Burger King - if not, there are usually two competing fast food restaurants. Now, why doesn't McDonald's get crafty and raise the price of a Big Mac attack to $20? That would increase profit, wouldn't it? Yes, each Big Mac sold would turn a hideous profit over the operating costs to make it.

But there's a catch. The employees are working in the store whether a big mac is sold or not. The lights are on, the fryers are going, the griddle hot, the freezers freezing, etc. But that's not a problem, you're the only one in town selling Big Macs - if people want a big mac, they've got to pony up, right?

Except, there's that other fast food store in town. Sure - they are only making a 3% profit on that hamburger as opposed to your 280% profit - but they are now getting over 90% of the fast food customers, and most of yours simply not ordering Big Macs.

There is more profit in selling something at a lower price than someone else at a slightly lower profit margin than there is in selling something at the same price as a competitor with a higher profit margin.

You'd have to ask yourself that if prices continue to rise faster than income, who the hell is going to stop it?

Someone who can provide the same service (or better) for a lower cost to the consumer.

Oh, wait, you have to put yourself into obscene amounts of debt before you can become a private practice - or be a millionaire as-is. The reason there aren't more health care start-ups is because of the regulations surrounding the market. It is simply not profitable to start any business related to health care - it is a waste of money, and those with the money to start other perfectly good businesses will avoid the health care industry despite the horrid amounts of waste, bloat, and unnecessarily high prices that would make it pathetically easy to slash costs to the consumer by 40% or more.

You talk about further deregulation, your claims go no further than speculation.

That is all anyone has. Speculation and varying depths of paperwork to beguile others into believing that speculation is something more.

yet we are what? 38th in the world for healthcare? Our expenditure on healthcare is more in proportion to our GDP, the costs of healthcare exceed other western nations, we are below costa rica for healthcare overall? So what's going on here? More deregulation you say? Sounds like a stubborn approach to what is clearly obvious when we compare ourselves to all other countries.

The error you make is that you assume the U.S. does not have a government regulated health care system. Observe: www.hg.org...

Don't know where to start? Neither do I - you can spend eight years of your life in a classroom and still only be well informed about laws as they pertain to HMOs.

Also, how does one rank healthcare? I don't like the food - so it all sucks by my estimation - but, really, how do you rank a health care system? By life expectancy? My grandfather hardly ever goes to the doctor, let alone receives health -care- and is well past average male life expectancy. My uncle had a new bypass surgery every year, it seemed, and he contributed to shortening average life expectancy - drinking binges and eating the way he did will do that to you, and all the medicine in the world can't save you.

The WHO attempts to rank health care systems - but there's no real way of ranking such an individual experience on a such a global level. We have good doctors, and good equipment. Not always the best - not always the worst. Yes - it is ridiculously expensive. Is it private? Yes. Is it efficient? No. Is it regulated? Yes.

This is in theory, that insurers aim to keep their premiums lower, and yet they continue to rise these premiums dramatically. You are once again speculating.

There is no reason for them to raise them unless it is due to factors outside of their direct control. It's not a theory - it's fact. You (and your employer) has a choice of insurance providers - they can (and do) search for competitors. Those who raise their prices above that of others that offer nothing worthy of the extra expenditure will lose their clients to other insurance companies.

www.cato.org... - This was back in 19 friggin 92. I started kindergarten in that year.

They thought health care cost too much then... we wish we could return to the days.

Clearly there are charities that help families through their needs, but this argument that charities will assist the millions out there caught without healthcare, well you only have reality to point to as evidence don't you?

If those out there without some form of health care insurance or support do not have friends, family, and a community willing to support them - then what does that say about that person? I really don't want my tax dollars going to someone who are in such a perilous situation and yet have a community that will ignore them.

You're also comparing one part of an existing system to a hypothetical change in that system. Society would not remain static to a change in health care.

How, exactly, it would change is almost unpredictable.

Healthcare charities are also declining around the country:

Why would they be necessary if the government is going to step in and take over for them?

European countries spend per capita between $3000 to $4000 per capita. The United States spends more than $6000.

European Union spends a third less over it's GDP on healthcare compared to the United states.

It's safe to say that you and I both see health care costs as excessive in the U.S. Europe is going broke over their socialized health care system with the EU telling Greece to nix its public health care system or implode.

That level of spending is simply unsustainable. The only reason the U.S. has been able to survive as long as it has is because health care spending has not been levied against the value of the dollar (government deficit spending) and our per-capita GDP is the greatest among all western nations with costs of living being typically lower than similar western nations. That gives us a huge margin of error.

Turning the spending over to the printing press would cause the dollar to implode faster than we could recall Obama from his basketball game.

Life expectancy? Please, go and have a look for yourself.

Look at how Americans eat. Look at how Europeans eat (while it varies - there are some general trends). Look at how long the average commute by POV is to work for an American versus Europe. Death (and how early it occurs) is not a good metric for a health care system. We had a bunch of soldiers die quite young over in Iraq. A lot of them could not have been helped with all of the medical technology in existence had it been five feet away. While not enough to skew the life expectancy rate that much - there are many cases of death that have nothing to do with health care. See my story above.

Sure, European countries like Greece and Portugal and co. are having their own financial issues however this has been due to the excessive deregulation and borrowing these countries have carried out during those years. Their economies were closely pegged to the United states, as with virtually all European countries.

How can a country with socialized health care not have a regulated health care system?

So don't talk to me about socialism because clearly the United States has no place to talk where it stands.

When the UK employs fewer administrators of its health care system than it has hospital beds, I'll seriously consider taking the advice of a socialist.

That's because you're not in need of medical attention, or you have not been refused by a medical institute to seek treatment for a pre-existing condition. Not everybody is in the same position as you.

Let me rephrase: Lack of insurance does not correlate to death.

In the event I am sick - I have this thing called a "savings account." It won't cover something like cancer - but either I have insurance before getting cancer, or I'm not going to get any at all - not much else. And, no, the government shouldn't pay for my lazy ass if I don't get insurance. Simple as that.

I don't need a car to get to work, I can take the bus.

That's just your personal situation. I have a semi-regular 90 mile commute on top of a regular 30 mile commute. When I lived "at home" - it was a 3 mile commute to town. Some method of private transportation for the other 60+% of us not living between slabs of concrete (city) require a method of private transportation in the majority of life. I like walking - I used to take that 3 mile walk into town, or run the whole way for fun. That's not practical when the extra two hours you spent walking could have been working for pay. And anything over five miles requires a bike (you could walk - but you won't be doing much other than walking, working, and sleeping). For those of us in rural areas - not having a motorized vehicle is a very practical obstacle to the expansion of one's career, education, and life in general.

What I do need is my inhaler so that I could get through work for the day and pay my bills. Without it I cannot function.

I honestly can't choose between a crack at social Darwinism for the sake of ribbing you - or to just tell you that like $3 at Wal Mart will resolve the inhaler issue. That is not a good argument for health care. What is a good argument for health care would be my mother - She contracted cancer at just over 40 and battled it for a little over 3 years before passing away. I was 18 when she died (turned 19 a few days later - happy birthday!) - My brothers were much younger at 14 and 10. A large portion of their life was filled with their mother being bed-ridden. I remember "the good days" when she would be out in the yard, taking us to friends houses - doing the stuff moms do that she could never do for them.

That's a case for why health care needs to be affordable and everyone should have access to it - for the stability of families and children. We had health insurance - saw some of the best doctors in the region. She still died. That's the way the cookie crumbles - it's health care, not health guarantee.

So, believe, you - me - I am for giving as many people access to health care as possible. There is, however, a right and a wrong way to do it.

Those insurance companies that do offer it at a price, more so than younger individuals. Often elderly people are caught out with pre-existing conditions.

This is because those with pre-existing conditions cost more money. There is no way around it. Passing that expense off on the tax payer does not change the fact that they would contribute to the rising cost of health care.

You can't just give people health care and expect it not to cost anything.

In a perfect world those people will be able to spend that much. You are right, if everybody could afford a Ford F 140 truck, there would be no issue, unless ofcourse the prices of those trucks rise to compete.

You're not making any sense, here. Or... a lot of other places, but especially here.

And yet we have millions of people unqualified for these programmes who are costing this nation an additional $100 billion a year.

echealthinsurance.com...

From this site:

Believe me we can help you, East Coast Health Insurance has documented every free public resource in the United States and the fact is that even before any health reform law is passed, nearly 40% of the uninsured are eligible for a free government health program or some kind of public assistance program and just don’t know it. Additionally, we know every single health insurance loophole in the book and will get you health insurance or health coverage period. We will never talk about a discount program as we don’t even know the names of any.

Insurance companies had a good chance to completely privatize medicare and medicaid during the last administration and during the Reagan administration, they chose not to play ball, that says alot to me about their agenda and motives.

They just didn't want to play ball on your terms that defy economics.

Oh yes, so those senators and representitives up there in DC care more about status than lobbyist money? Really? Money is power, money talks and so do lobbyists.

I think you missed my point. If you think that insurance companies are the only ones "out for profit regardless of who dies" - and the people in our government care about our lives - then you're mistaken. Putting the government in charge of health care won't make it any easier for your average person to go see the doctor so they can stop bleeding from their eyes or whatever.

Ofcourse, because the corporations are willing to pay them. The invasion of Iraq war not merely of nation interests, it was in the interests of Bush's oil buddies and the oil industry. The public option failed to get through government last year because Democrats, many of them, were heavily lobbied and paid by healthcare corporations. Money is always first on the list, "power" is just a side plate.

The public option failed because it was a bad idea. The whole bill was a bad idea - but it had the backing of a lot of health care companies (because they stood to be rewarded by huge government contracts to manage this behemoth). No U.S. oil company has really profited from the Iraqi oil supply - nor has any other oil company Bush can be reasonably affiliated with.

It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with getting their way. Most of them have more money than they know what to do with and the gifts from corporations mean little more than hand shakes. They realize they need the corporations to give them credibility (the real resource) - and the corporations realize the need for representatives to pass legislation favoring them. It's a love-hate relationship.

Hold on? Government pays the contract? Now what's the word I'm looking for?

The word you would be looking for is "local." IE - all of their expenses are met with revenue from tax collection with no authority to print currency or spend into a deficit. The measure would take effect at the levels where it was relevant and where people wanted it.

By Constitutional Law - it is a power expressly reserved to the States to provide additional rights, privileges, and programs. National healthcare is a violation of separation of powers without an amendment being passed granting the National government that authority.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Almost every town has a McDonald's and a Burger King

Fast food is not a necessity in my life. I can afford to live without it so can everybody else. Healthcare however is not something you can afford to live without. Not a good comparison. Fast food companies have to be in the business of offering lower prices or deals to get customers to their stores because their products are not essential, infact if anything fast food has gained a negative media view.

You are lumping incompatable things to fit into your economic view of a completely privatized healthcare industry, apples and oranges. Ask people what's more important to them, healthcare coverage or fast food.

Someone who can provide the same service (or better) for a lower cost to the consumer.

Well why should they? If a product or resource is valuable and a necessity to a society, if it is in high demand, why would there need to be a company provide it at a lower cost? The demand for healthcare is out there, people are in need of coverage so they could afford their healthcare costs. If , hypothetically, any healthcare insurer was to take those remaining millions of folks in this would compromise the industry as a whole and the value of healthcare as coverage would be available as a whole. If the value of this product or service is no longer sought after, what does that say? Healthcare companies are well aware of this, that is why they purposefully and cooperatively deny people coverage.

Oh, wait, you have to put yourself into obscene amounts of debt before you can become a private practice - or be a millionaire as-is. The reason there aren't more health care start-ups is because of the regulations surrounding the market.

Because goodness knows we should just remove all regulations and let everybody run their own standards of looking after the health conditions of people. I know alot of good law abiding folk who I would trust a suitcase with the nuclear launchcode contained in it, that doesn't mean that we should allow for a lawless society. Not everybody is respectable in the same way.

The error you make is that you assume the U.S. does not have a government regulated health care system.

No we do not have an unregulated market, hence our debate right now. My argument is that the regulations in place are not sufficient, my point also in comparing Europe was over the fact the United states held a freer market. Once again the United states is the only country in the western world with the majority of it's citizens covered under private healthcare. You also referred to Europe as "socialist", so it is apparent enough that you meant Europe, and not the United states.

[qupte]Also, how does one rank healthcare? I don't like the food - so it all sucks by my estimation - but, really, how do you rank a health care system? By life expectancy?

You can just say you don't believe those statistics. That's fine, deny.

My grandfather hardly ever goes to the doctor, let alone receives health -care- and is well past average male life expectancy.

That must be some grandfather of yours. Once again your experiences do not reflect the population overall. It does not reflect the current situation going on with healthcare in this country.

If those out there without some form of health care insurance or support do not have friends, family, and a community willing to support them - then what does that say about that person?

Ok so now we go ahead and attack the person in question themselves, nice. I have a very good relationship with my family and my friends. However just because I hold this kind of supportive relationship does not mean that they will be able to cover me for $50,000 over a life threatening disease. I don't know, do you have rich friends? I have no doubt they will attempt to help as best they can but to the top of my head, maybe they'll all manage to gather $10,000? I don't know. How wealthy are your friends? Can I get into contact with them?

I really don't want my tax dollars going to someone who are in such a perilous situation

And yet your tax dollars go to people like that each and every day, only they are dealt with or assisted by police. There's no escaping that sorry. Also to assume that people get into these situations because of some fault of theirs? There are numerous cases of people refused coverage, who are not eligible for the federal programmes and who find themselves in these kinds of situations unexpectedly.

Why would they be necessary if the government is going to step in and take over for them?

The government is stepping over them?! stop the presses! Please link me to the source, thanks.

This is because those with pre-existing conditions cost more money.

Exactly, and that is why millions more will be left out if the system was to completely privatize, because it would not be profitable to health insurers. You argued earlier that there were healthcare packages for the elderly, then just went ahead and admitted my point that they would leave out those millions. The privatization fo the healthcare industry will just create more losers in the public, but hey, it's meant to be in your eyes. Forget the fact it will inevitably cost you and me a portion of our income. Unless you suggest we enforce laws to force down on because to pay $1000's within a matter of days for healthcare. Goodluck.

I'd rather pay a portion of my income ensuring that people can get the treatment they need and do pay it, as opposed to having to pick up part of the tap because somebody was uncovered and could'nt pay the bill. The latter is inevitable in this system and the system you argue for.

You can't just give people health care and expect it not to cost anything.

You're not making any sense, here. Or... a lot of other places, but especially here.

Right, you argued that if people are willing to pay, they will be covered, It will take alot of money for health insurers before they will even consider covering somebody with a pre-existing condition. To you, the money or cost doesnt seem to be an issue in this case. If money was not an issue, we could all get what we want.

They just didn't want to play ball on your terms that defy economics.

It's great, you admit that millions more will be worse off under a privatized system because it doesn't suit the profitability of the private sector.

I think I'm done here. Evidently you are for a completely unregulated system and you don't care as to what expense that system will be, it's just the "right" way in your eyes. Theres nothing much to argue further in this case.

I'll respond to your sequence of posts this one last time. The discussion is going in circles, and I don't see much point in continuing it much farther.

Fast food is not a necessity in my life. I can afford to live without it so can everybody else. Healthcare however is not something you can afford to live without. Not a good comparison. Fast food companies have to be in the business of offering lower prices or deals to get customers to their stores because their products are not essential, infact if anything fast food has gained a negative media view.

Food, my friend, is essential. Be it fast, dine-in, delivery, home-made from scratch, or microwave. The only reason Farmer Bob doesn't insist a cob of corn costs $10 is because Farmer Joe is willing to sell them for $0.25. Now - once Farmer Joe runs out - Farmer Bob will get business by necessity - but one of Farmer Bob's hands gets a loan from a bank or investors, and creates a new farm as Farmer John, selling corn. Farmer John saw the waste, bloat, geed, etc in Farmer Bob's operation and knows he can do a better job. Since he's starting up, he's still having to sell at a slightly higher price than Farmer Joe - but still substantially less than Farmer Bob. Farmer Bob must lower his prices or liquidate.

Now - an ideal free market has unlimited resources, no market entry regulations/fees, and a market completely driven by quality/price (and the relationship between the two). Realistic free markets will have abuse of realistic aspects - Farmer's unions with-holding inventory to drive up market price, for example (in an ideal free market - those farmers not part of unions would completely nullify the attempt to artificially drive prices high, as they would have an unlimited inventory).

You are lumping incompatable things to fit into your economic view of a completely privatized healthcare industry, apples and oranges. Ask people what's more important to them, healthcare coverage or fast food.

All the more reason to make a wise and informed consumer choice when and where possible.

Well why should they? If a product or resource is valuable and a necessity to a society, if it is in high demand, why would there need to be a company provide it at a lower cost? The demand for healthcare is out there, people are in need of coverage so they could afford their healthcare costs.

You're lumping health care and health insurance together. I'm not talking about health insurance - I'm talking about health care - medical institutions. If I can perform a surgery on you that is just as good as the high-dollar hospital at less cost to you, while still covering my expenses and turning a reasonable profit... it would stand to reason I would get a considerable amount of business. I might have a small practice - but if it is easy for me (and others) to start up these practices while still meeting safety standards (like it is easy to start up a restaurant - everyone and their damned brother starts a restaurant), then it would stand to reason that these small practices would spring up and eventually meet the demand of health care treatment, stealing business away from impractically expensive facilities.

Sure - they would eventually begin to consolidate - but when private practices can spring up and threaten their market share due to lack of restrictions on entry into the market, it would go a long way towards keeping prices in check.

Because goodness knows we should just remove all regulations and let everybody run their own standards of looking after the health conditions of people. I know alot of good law abiding folk who I would trust a suitcase with the nuclear launchcode contained in it, that doesn't mean that we should allow for a lawless society. Not everybody is respectable in the same way.

You're willing to let any idiot start up a restaurant that services many more people over a much longer period of time without having to go through hideous amounts of regulations and licensing fees. Fatal incidents at restaurants (despite having far more frequent customers and just as much risk to public and personal health - if not more) or resulting from restaurant food consumption is far less than incidents in the health care industry (even when removing surgical procedures from the figures).

Government regulation doesn't guarantee safety - only offers up a fine for breaching standards (after harming/killing people) and makes it difficult for new companies to enter the market due to high start-up costs.

That's not to say there should not be standards for health care facilities - however, most of the regulations have been backed by large health care lobbyists and serve no purpose other than to keep the market as isolated as possible from start-up industries and bleed-through from related industries (Keeping Hobart from building MRI units if it sees Raytheon, or whomever, charging far more than is necessary - and similar things).

No we do not have an unregulated market, hence our debate right now. My argument is that the regulations in place are not sufficient, my point also in comparing Europe was over the fact the United states held a freer market.

No, the United States does not have a "freer" market. While the companies in business are privately owned and operated - there is no threat to their market share, and their market power is almost absolute. It is not a valid free market when the costs for entering the market are so impractically high that the only companies in the market are those that have already established virtual monopolies (only two or three major players exist).

Compare the health care industry to any valid free market - restaurants, computers, etc. Sure - you have power-players in the computer market, but there is a lot of bleed-through and undercutting. Nvidia recently challenged Sun Microsystems, Motorolla, and Texas Instruments with the Tegra and Ion ultra-low-wattage systems for use in portable electronics. Intel is looking to challenge AMD/ATI and Nvidia in the GPU market. Sun Microsystems has worked with TI and IBM in the past in developing different architectures that can spring into an established market at any time (or form their own market).

That is why the cost of computers compared to per-capita GDP has gone -down- despite inflation and rising costs of other markets.

That must be some grandfather of yours. Once again your experiences do not reflect the population overall. It does not reflect the current situation going on with healthcare in this country.

My grandmother on my father's side is the same way. So was my grandfather on that side - he developed complications just a few years before he finally went and didn't spend much time in the hospital or on prescriptions up to that point.

Their long life has had almost nothing to do with the health care system, but with their lifestyle. I do not know of many people who regularly visit hospitals who live a long and healthy life. You either have good genetics and a mysterious luck that keeps you out of prickly health situations, or you live your life with one foot in the grave until you finally fall in.

The rest are responses to emergency situations - wounds, infections, and fractures. Luck has as much to do with how well you recover as quality of health care. Genetics, where you were when you got into an emergency situation, your will to live, the experience and knowledge of the staff on hand, etc all factor in.

However just because I hold this kind of supportive relationship does not mean that they will be able to cover me for $50,000 over a life threatening disease.

There's not much anyone can do for those. What people can do something about is if you get injured, need your gal bladder removed or appendix - something that doesn't cost a fortune (but is still relatively expensive). Most hospitals have payment plans, and many community organizations are more than willing to help their members - often times in ways that are more important than monetary contributions (and more necessary).

In the case of a life threatening disease - you either have the ability to seek treatment, or you don't. Either way is a blessing. Knowing you are going to die is just as much of a blessing as being able to hope you will live. Government insurance is not going to change any of this - most diseases that cost a lot of money will not be covered by government plans because that level of spending is simply unsustainable. Just look at the UK's health care system for 'rationing.'

I have no doubt they will attempt to help as best they can but to the top of my head, maybe they'll all manage to gather $10,000? I don't know. How wealthy are your friends? Can I get into contact with them?

A number of the therapists up at my church gave our family free sessions following the death of my mother. A number of them are also doctors and have written prescriptions or given referrals free of charge (bypassing $200 in expenses easily) - others donated home equipment used to treat my mother and got my father into volunteer study/research sessions for sleep apnea.

It's not always about the direct money. Sure - every community organization can pass the offering plate around and draw the little graph with a goal marker for donations on it - but the important thing is the network, who knows who, and who can pull the strings.

There are two resources you need to concern yourself with in life. The first is friends and social resources. Not only who can pull strings for you, but who you can pull strings for. The second is money. When there is a lack of one, the other will almost always bridge the gap. Generally speaking - social networks are far more powerful than money. Your average Joe can access resources that would be difficult for a millionaire to get with a few good links.

There are numerous cases of people refused coverage, who are not eligible for the federal programmes and who find themselves in these kinds of situations unexpectedly.

There's not much to be "unexpected." You don't search for insurance when you need health treatment. It's like you don't try to get full coverage insurance on your car after having a wreck - it doesn't work that way. That is not what insurance is for. Insurance is to handle the unexpected. If you find yourself in the unexpected, and have no insurance (not a savings account, a plan through a company, etc) - then it's no one's fault but your own.

I'm not going to say that everyone without insurance -deserves- what they get - but that they can't really be surprised. If I get hurt and don't have the money to pay - it's no one's problem but my own for not having an insurance plan sufficient to cover the costs. I do not expect tax payers to broad-spectrum cover my expenses. I do not expect those I know to take care of me. If they see my presence as worth preserving, then they will help where they can.

You're trying to live in a world of ideals - where everyone with a boo-boo can get a kiss and a band-aid. The problem is that it's just not practical - that's reality. All we can do is work to reduce health care expenses and progress the market to the point that last year's cutting edge medical technology is available to the common people, and last year's common technology is available for practically free.

The only way to do that is through a free market system with as little government involvement as possible.

The government is stepping over them?! stop the presses! Please link me to the source, thanks.

Once again, you're not making any sense. You want the government to pay for everyone's medical expenses. What would the point of a charity for aiding those with medical bills be, if the government already pays all medical expenses?

Exactly, and that is why millions more will be left out if the system was to completely privatize, because it would not be profitable to health insurers. You argued earlier that there were healthcare packages for the elderly, then just went ahead and admitted my point that they would leave out those millions.

I would seriously vote for a government-sponsored program to improve reading comprehension. It would make most of the past couple posts invalid if you had some.

Look, sparky - people with pre-existing conditions and elderly are different groups, really. Many pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying. They may raise premiums, or influence what kind of restrictions are placed on your policy. When I said the elderly would be offered special packages - I did not necessarily mean those with pre-existing conditions.

Example - I get cancer and decide to look for a health insurance provider. Why should any insurance company approve?

Look at it from a rational perspective - I waited to get insurance until I was in trouble - this reflects a general lack of responsibility to begin with. For another - entering into a contract with me would immediately bind the insurance company to paying my bills despite my never paying into the system. Further - the type of condition is potentially fatal with high incidence of relapse and chronic problems associated with it - therefor the chance I will be able to repay, over time, my medical expenses is very low.

Were a bank to give a loan to someone they knew were unable to pay that loan back, it would be considered predatory and the bank being financially irresponsible, greedy, and evil. However, when a health insurance company behaves in a fiscally responsible manner and declines a contract that is likely to do nothing but drain the account of money that could be used to provide treatment for hundreds of other people (including preventative measures and screenings for early detection) - it is considered greedy and evil.

This is a double-standard. The reason our health care system isn't financially broke (drained of money) is because health insurance companies have had to be financially responsible and provide reserve capital capable of meeting the costs of treatment for its clients. Accepting individuals into that insurance company that are only going to deprive other members of funding for the treatment they need is irresponsible and a crime against those clients of the insurance company who rely on the responsible management of funds for their health care.

I'd rather pay a portion of my income ensuring that people can get the treatment they need and do pay it, as opposed to having to pick up part of the tap because somebody was uncovered and could'nt pay the bill. The latter is inevitable in this system and the system you argue for.

The amount spent on uninsured visits to the ER is far less than the unnecessary bloat and waste in the present system that has gone on because of a lack of market competition. Easily 30% of everything we spend on health care is pure waste. Another 10-20% on top of that can be brought down through competition. You could pay for all of the uninsured visits to the ER with about 2-3% of the savings that would be brought to the health care industry - hospitals could pick up the tab without having to involve the tax payer.

However, if a local government wishes to enact a policy that reimburses hospitals for expenses incurred by the uninsured - that is their prerogative. The city of St. Louis could to that - or even the whole State of Missouri. I would generally be opposed to such a measure on the scope of the State, but I can honor the desire of the people (who would directly vote on such a measure, as opposed to Federal legislation).

Right, you argued that if people are willing to pay, they will be covered, It will take alot of money for health insurers before they will even consider covering somebody with a pre-existing condition. To you, the money or cost doesnt seem to be an issue in this case. If money was not an issue, we could all get what we want.

Again - you don't get insurance because you are in a bind. That is not what it is for. If I were to come down with something really bad within the next few weeks - I'm SOL. If I buy into an insurance plan and get sick a few months later - that's part of the risk the insurance company accepted to take.

Nor is it the inherent responsibility of the government to pick up the tab for things like this. If people in local governments want to take on that expense - they are more than welcome to do it. However - it is not a default responsibility of the government. Placing the government in charge will still not reduce costs. Making the health care industry competitive will reduce costs, and make it increasingly practical for governments to aid people when and/or where they feel it is appropriate.

It's great, you admit that millions more will be worse off under a privatized system because it doesn't suit the profitability of the private sector.

You're horrible at this game of misquoting people and it makes you look as dumb as a bag of hammers.

You're focused on an insignificant portion of the population. Sounds harsh - but it's true. I admit that there will be a few million who will be "worse off" in a purely free market, privatized system. There are people who can't afford food, - that doesn't mean we need to turn the grocery store over to the government. The -hundreds- of millions are better off because of the market competition. The best way to handle the health care industry is about the same way we handle the food industry. Let the free market produce the goods and the service in a competitive environment. The governments that wish may then budget and release coupons for reimbursement of goods and services rendered via those private companies.

It is not perfect - but it is the best hybridization that preserves both free market dynamics and "what about this poor sap?" bleeding-heart social program jazz. Lower costs to both the free market and to the governments that wish to provide health care to the 'unfortunate.'

That also minimizes the powers lobbyists have over government policy (or at least confines it to specific regions) and how much power the government has over the free market while still providing for the demands of society.

I swear, sometimes I just want to become a dictator long enough to set up a functioning system of government for this nation of fools before turning it back over to you to see how long it takes for you all to screw yourselves over. "For the record, I tried."

Originally posted by Aim64C
Food, my friend, is essential.

Fast food is not essential, quite the contrary. If we are talking about fruits and vegetables and staple foods then those are essential, but comparing them to a surgery worth 1000's of dollars that you may or may not need one day, I see no similarity.

And concerning your example about "farmer john and co.", these farmers are willing to sell to anybody because corn does not discrimminate. In the healthcare indusrty, healthcare insurers do discrimminate and they do so in mind of maximizing profit. Healthcare insurers will not sell their services to somebody with a pre-existing condition as you admitted, they will not make profit. In the healthcare industry there are losers because certain customers are unprofitable such as the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.

But then again you make it clear, even if millions more will be left out in a private system, its the "right" system to have in place.

All the more reason to make a wise and informed consumer choice when and where possible.

Well who's to say they have a choice? If health insurers will not cover them and the doctors costs are beyond reasonable, what choice do they have again?

I'm talking about health care - medical institutions. If I can perform a surgery on you that is just as good as the high-dollar hospital at less cost to you, while still covering my expenses and turning a reasonable profit... it would stand to reason I would get a considerable amount of business.

Wonderful, where are these doctors? There's nothing stopping them.

Government regulation doesn't guarantee safety

I agree, but it minimizes it my eyes.

That's not to say there should not be standards for health care facilities - however, most of the regulations have been backed by large health care lobbyists and serve no purpose other than to keep the market as isolated as possible from start-up industries and bleed-through from related industries

I actually agree with you there. While the idea of removing state boundaries for healthcare insurers would service corporations, there were larger corporations that opposed the idea. When Reagan and the Bush's attempted to privatize medicare and medicaid, health insurers were not interested. This only proves that these company's work cooperative to push their agenda, and if government doesn't play to their rules, they will do so themselves.

And yes, I'm sure we can imagine new practices and insurers popping up offering cheaper services, but in a market dominated by afew, the entry barriers are near impossible along with the costs.

No, the United States does not have a "freer" market.

So then the United states is socialist, right?

There's not much to be "unexpected." You don't search for insurance when you need health treatment.

Yet many people are refused coverage who are not in need of healthcare treatment at that moment. These are not merely people searching for coverage while in their condition. People are refused full stop, often it's for silly pre-existing condition they were born with.

Once again, you're not making any sense. You want the government to pay for everyone's medical expenses. What would the point of a charity for aiding those with medical bills be, if the government already pays all medical expenses?

Didn't you just say that charities were being stepped upon by the government? I want the government to assure that there is a safety net in place for those in need. This is already done with medicare and medicaid, but then again there are those middle class folks who do not fall into neither condition for these programmes and who cannot find coverage. The government cannot pay for everybody caught up in this issue right now, but it can get those who are left out covered. The public option was a good idea in this case.

people with pre-existing conditions and elderly are different groups, really. Many pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying. They may raise premiums, or influence what kind of restrictions are placed on your policy. When I said the elderly would be offered special packages - I did not necessarily mean those with pre-existing conditions.

And let me remind you again, when healthcare companies had the chance to get a hand in privatizing the medicare and medicaid programmes, they were not interested. No doubt there will be some eldery able to get coverage and able to afford it, but the majority on those programmes are there by necessity. As for healthcare insurers not refusing all pre-existing condtions, in some cases yes, but there are millions left out because of their pre-existing condition, and it is not necessarily people caught out in need of treatment at that very moment.

You're horrible at this game of misquoting people and it makes you look as dumb as a bag of hammers.

If you don't like having your arguments repeated back to you, that's not my problem. You are trying to rationalize a private system at the expense of millions, meanwhile your generalizing many of those people left out as the situation being due to their neglegence. What's more you even when so far as to justify that we should just let them be because that's life. This is all you've really done when it came to the debate of coverage for the millions left out once medicare and medicaid is removed. You admitted that many of these people left out of these programmes will be unprofitable to these healthcare insurers so what does that mean? It means that more people will be left without coverage and affordable healthcare once these government programmes are removed.

But please, go on and reply. I think from here it's a moot of an argument. You support the idea of a completely privatized system regardless of whether it is at the expense of millions more people. There need not be any further points made.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


This discussion is going in circles, and I will not be going point-by-point on this.

For starters, you're taking cases that apply to 2% of the population, at most, and marginalizing the other 98% of the population. Socialized health care would - in theory - cover the percentage of cases that fall outside of private insurance plans, however, it would create many more problems for the vast majority of the population. Further - the federal government cannot afford to levy the price of health care (nearly 30% of our economy) against the value of the dollar - which is what will be done with our currency system.

Imploding our economy and destroying the health care system based on 2% of the population - or even 15 (if you want to ignore the fact that about 40% of those uninsured are already eligible for government aid programs and that only half remain without health care for longer than 12 months) - is just completely irrational and illogical no matter how you attempt to quantify it.

As for the solution - it has already been given to you:

First, you deregulate the health care industry. As it stands, the costs associated with entering into private practice or small hospital environments are so large as to make it impractical to pursue. Licensing and various arbitrary regulations/restrictions (that have nothing to do with safety or health concerns) further compound the issue.

Second, you discontinue national health care programs and discontinue national subsidies to the states for those programs.

Third - states that wish to instate or continue various government run health care programs may do so as they see fit and provide for those expenses with tax revenue. If they want to cover people with pre-existing conditions that fall within certain criteria, then they can. If they want to simply issue coupons to everyone for health care and pick up the tab - then they can do that, too.

That is how the division of powers intended this country to be run.

There will always be some sob story about how the "system" left some kid or person behind. I'm all for minimizing the number - but I'm not at all in favor of crashing the bus full of people to save the kid waltzing into the middle of the street.

WHat they are saying is that, U.S. citizens wont get the services.

But illegals will still be free to get whatever they want, Have children in parkland hospital for free that is ok.

Don't worry it will only effect the slave citizens not the new invaders of north america.