US Health Fare

[Revenesque 2]

These aren't about my opinion, they are about the constitution and the law, period.

A central bank is unconstitutional in the United States actually. The treasury department is supposed to handle these affairs.

currency

See constitution.

and national economic development?

See individual states. National economics is supposed to be reflective of overall economics within the nation. Some states are up, some are down, etc.. it's the way things work.

What about foreing affairs?

You mean making sure we are at peace? This falls into national security.

International trade?

Regulated constittutionally, but beyond regulatory rules, the Federal government is supposed to take no part in it.

Telecommunications?

Private, not a public issue.

Postal Services?

FedEx and UPS are both more efficient than USPS, so you tell me.

What about immigration?

Immigration isn't handled by the government actually. They just set the rules. Taxpayer dollars don't pay for it. (see: fees associated with applications)

Who takes care of national highways?

There are national highways? Really? Please show them to me. There are "interstate" highways, but each state is/as should be responsibile for maintaining it within their boundries.

All 50 states should secede and become their own country then, if the US federal government is that useless. Anyway, I'm going back to the thread topic.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

All 50 states should secede and become their own country then, if the US federal government is that useless. Anyway, I'm going back to the thread topic.

lol, that was the INTENT of the constitution. Every state would run itself with very little intervention by the Federal Government. The Federal Government was never to be anything more than a mediator between states and for national security.

The founders warned quite well themselves. They said it may not be perfect, but it's the best shot that a nation has ever been given to have liberty. They said though and rightly so, that it's the natural inclination of things through time for liberty to fade and control/tyranny to take over. That's nature at its best because people are so easily broken into the daily doldrums of life.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm derailing this thread so

The US health care system has many cogs and the government regulation is only ONE of the cogs. Taking the government out will NOT fix the problem. Targeting the insurance industry alone will NOT fix the problem. The problem is that every cog (users, insurance companies, medical and support industry, pharmaceuticals, government, employers) in the system has powerful incentive to remain status quo. To make any impact, one has to address most of these cogs to reduce costs and improve health care access to everyone.

You can trace almost every aspect of the problem back to federal regulations or federal agencies who oversee certain parts of the health care industry.

The "status quo" when it comes to health care is for government to keep its nose in where it doesn't belong.

and you want to know know one HUGE problem with cost? It's the FDA. The FDA does so much harm to what medicines and procedures are allowed to be used in this country, it's not even funny. If there were more 'options' and risks were openly discussed, then why the hell not? Oh wait, that's right, according to many on the left, 'we don't know what's good for us.'

Strangely, the health & health insurance industry, unlike other private industries, does NOT behave well with the free market system because 1) transparency issues (limited, highly specialized knowledge and skill expertise to provide service), 2) the profit-seeking nature in a competitive environment actually incent insurance companies to cherry pick their revenue base 3) profit-seeking entities insurance/medical/support/pharmaceuticals have high barriers to entry. This is one exception where competition and free market don't always benefit the consumer.

What's wrong with cherry picking?

The honest truth is, insurance wouldn't be such a necessity if costs were brought down and that's what it really comes down to. See my other point in this post for that. There are plenty of ways to bring the cost down that have to do with deregulating the system itself.

[Revenesque 2]

You can trace almost every aspect of the problem back to federal regulations or federal agencies who oversee certain parts of the health care industry.

Really...provide some specific example, please.

and you want to know know one HUGE problem with cost? It's the FDA. The FDA does so much harm to what medicines and procedures are allowed to be used in this country, it's not even funny. If there were more 'options' and risks were openly discussed, then why the hell not? Oh wait, that's right, according to many on the left, 'we don't know what's good for us.'

Don't agree. In an industry where transparency is an issue, you need governance to step in to regulate and protect the public from abuse. Otherwise, you'll have companies sticking in chemicals in our food and medicine that do nothing or harm us, while lining their pocketbooks. Think tainted milk in China. In terms of medicine and health care, the majority of us are not healthcare and medicine experts and the government needs to step in with regulations.

What's wrong with cherry picking?

I believe health is a basic right, not a privilege. Cherry-picking in this case means healthcare access is privileged to those who can afford it instead of providing most good to the greatest number.

The honest truth is, insurance wouldn't be such a necessity if costs were brought down and that's what it really comes down to. See my other point in this post for that. There are plenty of ways to bring the cost down that have to do with deregulating the system itself.

Actually, insurance brings efficiency to the system, improve access to the users while reducing their costs collectively and improve business for healthcare providers. I've already mentioned the auto insurance industry in British Columbia achieving this goal. The problem is when you introduce profit seeking intentions, the whole costs collectively from each factions goes up.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Revenesque

[Revenesque 2]

The problem is when you introduce profit seeking intentions, the whole costs collectively from each factions goes up.

And let it be known that normally I'm not against profit-seeking for enterprises but the healthcare industry is different in that they provide highly specialized, low transparency, non-homogenous service with little substitutes that can only be provided by a few high entry barrier service providers. We're not dealing with consumer products like travel, food, clothing here where if you don't like a product/service, you can easily go to another competitor or substitute. If you need a triple bypass and you also have high risk of _____ (fill in the blanks), you're not going to have alot of time or options here and you certainly cannot substitute without seriously sacrificing your health.

That is why in the free market system, healthcare services will remain expensive (and will continue to be so) because the demand will always be inelastic, while supply will be concentrated to a few. Why?--because health care is a necessity, a basic right and not a privilege.

Countries with universal health care system recognizes that, and to provide the most goods for the great number, they make it mandatory to have medical insurance. Increasing collective revenue base to afford claims payout, improing healthcare access while reducing the risk for all. Again, that is why countries like Canada, Australia and France who have universal health care also have improved quality of life and increased lifespan.

According to the CIA's country comparison of life expectancy: Australia is ranked #6, Canada at #7, France at #8 while the US flounders at #49.

And don't you worry about profits...insurance and the healthcare will still make money and last time I checked, the medical and support professionals aren't exactly starving.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Revenesque

[Revenesque 2]

lol, that was the INTENT of the constitution. Every state would run itself with very little intervention by the Federal Government. The Federal Government was never to be anything more than a mediator between states and for national security.

I don't know enough about the US government structure to comment since I'm the non-USC here. I'm going to run this by my husband to see what he thinks.

[KnJ 0]

Whoa. 5 pages since yesterday. Well played.

Really, the thread was about adjusting to this other system, it wasn't a case for US health care reform. But it's always interesting to see where the topics go.

Back to.. who was it?

The person who said read the ins and outs of your policy. I swear it's as bad as a credit card agreement..

Basically if they don't diagnose something, the tests could be not covered. So really I should refuse tests, since nothing has been diagnosed before. Which means, I'm basically just as well off taking over the counter pain medication. Put another way, at least the health spending account covers advil abuse