HillaryCare- The Dark Side

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

The US does lead the rest of the world at it, though.

True, but we're also the largest industrialized nation, by a long shot. And I don't think the innovation is due to having a patchwork treatment-financing scheme.

Do you think we got to be the largest industrialized nation by a long shot by accident? Private companies and free markets brought this not the government. Government will only hamper progress. The only true solution to the health care system lies in the free market not the government. You make it in the best interest of the drug companies, doctors and hospitals to bring us the best possible care at the lowest prices. That only happens with free markets, government control is exactly 180 degrees the wrong direction. This will result in even higher costs, lower quality and more pain and suffering for the masses.

Really compassionate isn't it! That money is better spent on innovation then bureaucracy!

Exactly! Now remember that no health care system spends as insanely on bureaucracy as the private system in the US. Both in absolute and relative terms, we have the most expenses on red tape in health care. There's no system more red tape laden and more bureaucratic than that created by the private industry right here in the good ole US of A.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

If you need an example of what happens to a medical system with competition just look at Lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery. Neither are covered under insurance and the price for each has dropped so precipitously due to competition that you can get your eyes fixed cheap compared to relatively simple operations that cost much more because they are paid for under insurance.

And with that price drop and competition comes some pretty shotty surgeries that have damaged people's eyes and other body parts. I don't think it's good when doctors are more concerned about their bottom line or competitor then my health.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Alhamdulillah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Where does mental healthcare stand in this new system?

[Dan J 277]

Save your money, buy the coverage that you require and push for more free market solutions like medical savings accounts where YOU control the money, not the government, not the insurance companies! then they will serve your needs, not the governments, not the insurance companies.

The number of employers offering employer sponsored health plans is going down and it can be quite difficult to get private insurance, espesically if you have a pre-existing conditions. After all, sick people are not profitable. How useful is insurance if you cant get it when you really need it?

Not that one the HSA the new one MSA that is being offered to people with small businesses does not expire every year. More like a 401K of health care. Where you save up the money that would go to the insurance company, buy only catastrophic insurance and pay for the rest of your services with the interest accruing account that you control. Right now they are only being offered to small businesses that do not have enough employees to qualify for insurance coverage discount rates. They should be expanded to all people, but they will not be unless we start demanding them from our employers. If I had the money put into an account instead of given to a HMO or insurance company and then I was allowed to make all my choices in health care it would be a real wonderful thing. The competition between the medical providers would increase quality while the price would plummet.

There is no competition between insurance providers. You choose what your employer offers, or you choose nothing. If your employer offers nothing, you might get private insurance if and only if, you are very healthy. Those with pre-existing condition, sorry, your screwed. The free market finds you too unprofitable to help. You can sometimes get coverage with pre-existing conditions through an employer, but the number of employers offering coverage is going down.

If you need an example of what happens to a medical system with competition just look at Lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery. Neither are covered under insurance and the price for each has dropped so precipitously due to competition that you can get your eyes fixed cheap compared to relatively simple operations that cost much more because they are paid for under insurance.

And like any free market you don't have to shop at Wal-Mart but you are not forced to pay for Nordstrom's either.

Elective treatments are not what we are discussing here. But it is the only place in the entire health care industry which has some competition. While you may have the time to choose a Lasik provider, do you really want to spend time in an emergency arguing with the 911 operator over what companies ambulance to send?

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Do you think we got to be the largest industrialized nation by a long shot by accident? Private companies and free markets brought this not the government. Government will only hamper progress. The only true solution to the health care system lies in the free market not the government. You make it in the best interest of the drug companies, doctors and hospitals to bring us the best possible care at the lowest prices. That only happens with free markets, government control is exactly 180 degrees the wrong direction. This will result in even higher costs, lower quality and more pain and suffering for the masses.

Really compassionate isn't it! That money is better spent on innovation then bureaucracy!

Well, abundant arable land helped.

And the evil federal government enabled much of it to happen by funding major civil works projects (dams, railroads) and building infrastructure. It's not all about the free market. Some necessary projects aren't sexy or--*gasp*--profitable.

I agree with your free-market argument regarding other stuff--cars, shoes, electronics--but not health care.

It would also help if medical education weren't a small fortune. Doctors in other countries don't earn as much as they do in the U.S., but they also don't graduate into $100,000 debt or have to buy yearly malpractice premiums that cost more than a condo.

Well, abundant arable land helped.

Well the land helped but the Japanese have very little arable land and the do pretty well I would say. After WW2 their country was destroyed and the used fre market capitalism to surpass most of the world and rival us didn't they.

Major civil works projects

Like building some Nuclear Power Plants so we could be a little more self sufficient. I would have no argument if they did that. Please do. I think others might though and they don't hang out on my side of the aisle.

I agree with your free-market argument regarding other stuff--cars, shoes, electronics--but not health care.

Why not do you think the laws of economics and free markets cease to exist when the topic of health care, education or anything else that the government tries to regulate is on the table. Oh there can be some regulation, but not enough to take away the profit incentive or that it strangles competition.

The one thing I would exempt from this is the military, not because they could not use more innovation, but because the loyalty must remain with the nation as a whole. A private military may lead to a disaster one day.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good points!

The number of employers offering employer sponsored health plans is going down and it can be quite difficult to get private insurance, espesically if you have a pre-existing conditions. After all, sick people are not profitable. How useful is insurance if you cant get it when you really need it?

There is no competition between insurance providers. You choose what your employer offers, or you choose nothing. If your employer offers nothing, you might get private insurance if and only if, you are very healthy. Those with pre-existing condition, sorry, your screwed. The free market finds you too unprofitable to help. You can sometimes get coverage with pre-existing conditions through an employer, but the number of employers offering coverage is going down.

It also doesn't help that you need to be a paralegal to determine which plan is best for you. Most people, I think, simply choose what costs the least....

Elective treatments are not what we are discussing here. But it is the only place in the entire health care industry which has some competition. While you may have the time to choose a Lasik provider, do you really want to spend time in an emergency arguing with the 911 operator over what companies ambulance to send?

Which begs the obvious question as to what happens when the patient is completely incapacitated and unable to do that. Is it pot luck who picks you up, and whether or not it ends up being covered?

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Where does mental healthcare stand in this new system?

Why, do feel the need for some help?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Where does mental healthcare stand in this new system?

Why, do feel the need for some help?

Try again Its the single most neglected area of the healthcare system.

The point was made earlier (as a justification for universal care) that many people aren't able to take care of themselves or family members when there is a sickness - Many homeless people, for example, are "incompetent" from the point of view of being able to take care of themselves. Many of them have no family which almost certainly means that they have no money to pay for treatment and care.

What is the solution here?

Does the free market have a solution for this type of problem?

Edited January 29, 2008 by Number 6

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Well, abundant arable land helped.

Well the land helped but the Japanese have very little arable land and the do pretty well I would say. After WW2 their country was destroyed and the used fre market capitalism to surpass most of the world and rival us didn't they.

Major civil works projects

Like building some Nuclear Power Plants so we could be a little more self sufficient. I would have no argument if they did that. Please do. I think others might though and they don't hang out on my side of the aisle.

I agree with your free-market argument regarding other stuff--cars, shoes, electronics--but not health care.

Why not do you think the laws of economics and free markets cease to exist when the topic of health care, education or anything else that the government tries to regulate is on the table. Oh there can be some regulation, but not enough to take away the profit incentive or that it strangles competition.

The one thing I would exempt from this is the military, not because they could not use more innovation, but because the loyalty must remain with the nation as a whole. A private military may lead to a disaster one day.

(1) The Japanese government was heavily involved in Japan's economic recovery. That the Japanese population was (and is) highly educated was important. Japan also received significant aid from the U.S. government in the years following the war. Government programs and the free market are often complementary, not mutually exclusive.

(2) I'm not following your argument about nuclear power plants. It seems that you don't want to acknowledge that civil works projects (chances are, the town you live in is protected by a dam somewhere, and not constructed by a private firm) are important.

(3) The laws of economics do not cease to exist vis-a-vis health care. But if the intent is to care for everyone, people are going to be left out if it's entirely profit driven. That's the situation we have now, and it's not improving.

(4) I could use some mental help.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Good points!

The number of employers offering employer sponsored health plans is going down and it can be quite difficult to get private insurance, espesically if you have a pre-existing conditions. After all, sick people are not profitable. How useful is insurance if you cant get it when you really need it?

There is no competition between insurance providers. You choose what your employer offers, or you choose nothing. If your employer offers nothing, you might get private insurance if and only if, you are very healthy. Those with pre-existing condition, sorry, your screwed. The free market finds you too unprofitable to help. You can sometimes get coverage with pre-existing conditions through an employer, but the number of employers offering coverage is going down.

It also doesn't help that you need to be a paralegal to determine which plan is best for you. Most people, I think, simply choose what costs the least....

Elective treatments are not what we are discussing here. But it is the only place in the entire health care industry which has some competition. While you may have the time to choose a Lasik provider, do you really want to spendtime in an emergency arguing with the 911 operator over what companies ambulance to send?

Which begs the obvious question as to what happens when the patient is completely incapacitated and unable to do that. Is it pot luck who picks you up, and whether or not it ends up being covered?

The number of employers offering employer sponsored health plans is going down

The fact that employers are in charge of our health care is a recent phenomena. Only appearing in WW2 as a way of attracting new employees with the wage freeze that accompanied the war. If we can separate the two we would be better off. The MSA would not be tied to the employer. It would be yours and only you control it. Now the funding can be changed so that maybe your employer just drops the coverage all together and pays the money directly to you which you put into the account and maybe you receive a deduction off of your taxes for all contributions that are made to it. If you make the the MSA not tied to employment but to the individual. Then it will between you and the company that holds the MSA account. The funding mechanism can be changed to what every is the most efficient for the people.

There is no competition between insurance providers. You choose what your employer offers, or you choose nothing.

The insurance provider would only be providing catastrophic health care coverage and you would do your home work like everything else in life.

Do you really want to spend time in an emergency arguing with the 911 operator over what companies ambulance to send?

It is not a difficult task to figure out the hospital before hand and the 911 operators do not send ambulances they send EMT paramedics, and in my city each ambulance company has its own territory. the one that comes is already decided. If in doubt the closest hospital seems to be the logical choice doesn't it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

My plan covers out of network in an emergency.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

My plan covers out of network in an emergency.

Not everyones plan does of course - and you're limited to what your employer offers. But this is all by the by of course - because to even assess what plans are better than others requires a detailed knowledge of insurance terminology.

Its a pretty silly situation you have to admit.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

My plan covers out of network in an emergency.

called move to britain or canada?

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

There will be no networks, No preferred providers, they will take you to the nearest hospital for treatment. I wouyld not be in a system wherever you go the catastrophic coverage would apply.