posted
I'm againts it - I just want the open groups.
If we decide people who can't afford coverage need government assistance, then we should buy them appropriate coverage on the open market.
We need to consolidate all the forms of assistance. Figure out a reasonable amount people need to live safely, with adequately food, healthcare, and housing. Set assistance levels based on that. Get rid of hundreds of government programs and reduce them to providing cash.
Then select programs for ensuring availability of health care (the group plan) or affordable housing (don't know how to do that) or child care and make the benefits of these available to anyone. Make sure the actual monetary assistance can cover the needed fees for those who need it.
We need something to help with the incentive problem, but I think it works.
We have a big problem in this country with health care. I don't have all of the answers but turning it over to the government to handle seems like a recipe for disaster.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
holden, you're very lucky that Sara Sasse's in Ottawa right now for a medical conference and isn't here to rip you a new one. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know much about Sara but I would hope she wouldn't "rip me a new one" for being opposed to socialized medicine. I don't think I have said anything offensive or derogatory.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holden, that article makes some good points, but some are pretty laughable:
quote:[exerpted from]Number Seven: "Free" Health Care Empowers the Poor And by depriving them [the poor] of the power of payment within the health care system, Medicare disempowers them. And the poor see this, because while they may be poor, they are not stupid.
Because obviously, the poor would be empowered, nay, ennobled by "access" to health care they have no way to pay for. I'm sure the poor are all clamoring for an end to socialized medicine. The main "evidence" supporting the conclusion of #7 was an anecdotal incident involving the author's middle-class girlfriend.
Also, the author acknowledges that Canada's health system is better than the US, though flawed, and it costs less per capita and as a percentage of GDP.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Getting pregnant is not like getting cancer. You don't just wake up one day pregnant through no fault of your own. If you feel you have an insurable risk, pay for the insurance, if not the government shouldn't force you.
As Bob pointed out, having kids is (or should be) the concern of every member of society. Making sure they are healthy (and helping moms get prenatal care is an important way to do that) CERTAINLY is everyone's concern.
BC is not 100% effective. If you are a female of childbearing age, there is a non-zero chance (unless you are celibate) that you will become pregnant.
Most (if not all) cancers are at least partly caused/triggered by preventable behaviors. Diet, smoking, sun exposure, pollutants (which are both contributed to by actions of individuals (like driving and using household cleaners), and higher in various areas, where people have made the choice to live), lack of exercise, etc.
quote: I think the cost of a pregnancy is in the $20,000 range, of which insurance would pick up something like 80 to 90% right?
Bob, it's been over 5 years since I last had a kid, but $20,000 sounds awfully high for a natural uncomplicated birth. My memory is more like $8,000 - 10,000 at the low end, and only as high as $20,000 with serious complications and/or a C-section. (Google is not helping. It's giving me lots of costs in yen . . . )
Percentage covered by insurance would depend on type of insurance (traditional, HMO, PPO) and some other factors, but yeah 80-90% would be about average, I think.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing that consistently tracks the general increase in insurance rates over the last 15 years in the US is: the profitability of the insurance companies (with insurance company CEO compensation a close second).
Claims track inflation, and lawsuits (resulting in some of the "hot coffee" type of egregious settlements) are way down the list.
posted
1) Canada pays less per capita and has better health outcome than the US.
2) The Canadian system ensures that everybody has at least a minimum level of care. US cost estimates don't include the costs of NOT treating people and probably doesn't show what it costs when those are written off as debt by hospitals.
3) Universal insurance with ALL US citizens treated as one insurance pool would be just fine with me. That way, everyone would know what it costs to be insured at whatever level they feel they need. It wouldn't depend on whether your company is huge or tiny, or you are self-employed or even unemployed. You can get insurance and it costs $X/month. Why is that impossible? How would that make it a thing that government would screw up?
One of my primary objections to the current system is that it is balanced on the back of small business and the self-employed. Since the majority of job growth in the US is through small business, we are letting the insurance industry basically kill our economy. Belle's business is by no means alone.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eeek. We went through a period of time when we were unemployed and uninsured. It was so scary.
My plasmapheresis alone(blood cleansing, basically) cost $6,000 for the blood alone, not including the machine and all that. I had it done seven times. I was in the hospital for two weeks, and a week in rehab. If we were not insured, we would be in big trouble.
When I hear of friends who are risking it, I just shudder, and worry so much!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
I don't necessarily think that Heritage Foundation is totally biased, but they certainly start from the assumptions outlined above. They aren't likely to put together analyses and post them that don't fit their pre-conceived notions of the "right" way to do things.
The fact that they highlighted a quotation from Rush Limbaugh on the "about Heritage" page set them down several pegs in my estimation.
quote:One of my primary objections to the current system is that it is balanced on the back of small business and the self-employed. Since the majority of job growth in the US is through small business, we are letting the insurance industry basically kill our economy. Belle's business is by no means alone.
Even worse, it basically extracts the benefits of a market system from the transaction while leaving the downside. And it subsidizes this by making employer-paid health costs deductible and privately-paid insurance premiums not.
quote: As Bob pointed out, having kids is (or should be) the concern of every member of society. Making sure they are healthy (and helping moms get prenatal care is an important way to do that) CERTAINLY is everyone's concern
Having children is a wonderful thing. I have two and we are expecting our third. I and I think nearly everyone would agree that we as a society have an interest in having healthy children. I am not opposed to services for the poor that cannot afford proper prenatal care. I am opposed to the government mandating in some states that if you are a female and you want health insurance you must buy insurance that covers maternity. If you don't have sex, can't get pregnant, or are willing to take the risk that you won't you shouldn't be forced to subsidize those that want children. We aren't talking about the poor, we are talking about everyone.
No need to google the cost of pregnancy. My wife is due in August and we have already paid all of her prenatal care in advance. The bill was $2100 including lab work and ultra sounds. The estimate on the hospital stay is between $3000 and $4000 depending on length of stay and other factors. I don't know about other states but I can tell you with certainty that in Utah a normal delivery is about $5,000.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 3) Universal insurance with ALL US citizens treated as one insurance pool would be just fine with me. That way, everyone would know what it costs to be insured at whatever level they feel they need. It wouldn't depend on whether your company is huge or tiny, or you are self-employed or even unemployed. You can get insurance and it costs $X/month. Why is that impossible? How would that make it a thing that government would screw up?
I am not against this. As I said before we have a big problem and I am open to creative solutions. I linked to the Heritage article only to point out that there are significant problems with socialized medicine. It is not the easy answer to all of our problems. I lean libertarian and am always suspicious of solutions to problems that focus on the government. What you proposed above sounds very different from what I consider socialized medicine.
By the way I know the Heritage foundation is a conservative think tank and that should be considered when reading the article. Next time I use them as a source I'll point that out in my post.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you don't have sex, can't get pregnant, or are willing to take the risk that you won't you shouldn't be forced to subsidize those that want children.
Out of interest, how do you feel about mandatory auto liability insurance?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't have sex, can't get pregnant, or are willing to take the risk that you won't you shouldn't be forced to subsidize those that want children.
In principle I agree, but for the following caveats:
1) It IS everyone's concern, so the costs could reasonably be spread across all participants. Just as currently everyone pays higher premiums because SOME people might need to use the services for one thing or another. It's the way insurance works. Sure, pregnancy is less of a "chance" event than some other reasons that someone might use health insurance, but singling out women who might bear children to pay an additional premium is, I think pretty stupid.
2) Rape happens. If a woman opted for no coverage because she was living a celibate life and was a victim of rape, would we tell her she had to pay the whole bill herself? My, aren't we nice!
3) Forcing people to pay higher premiums is really not a good idea.
Small government is a good thing, but there are places where government can generate economies that aren't possible in a free market setting.
The bottom line (literally) is that when you privatize, you turn things over to companies that HAVE TO make a profit to survive. At a minimum, all else being equal, that operation would have to be at least 10% more cost-efficient than government doing the same job, or the private entity goes out of business.
Sure, they have a motive to control costs, but so does government. I think the real question is how to deliver the desired outcome -- universal access to decent health care. Whether that is best done by something private, something public, or a partnership of the two doesn't really matter much to me. I see problems and benefits to every possible solution.
But I don't see our current way of doing things as either desirable or sustainable. So, we should do something...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I could agree, Bob, because I completely follow your argument and agree with your line of reasoning.
The trouble is that, in the total absence of competition, doctors and medical researchers will demand as much money as they can possibly get from the government or whoever it is that pays their bills. And they will probably succeed in getting whatever they demand, because their services are indispensable. (For instance--how do you think people would react to doctors threatening a strike?) So medical prices will continue to rise until not even the government can afford to pay them and limits coverage.
The only weak link I can see, anywhere, is with the government paying for "indigent care"--the person who comes in with no health insurance or funds but needs treatment. If it refused, and doctors either did this work for free or didn't do it at all, then that would be one source of pressure gone. Having been in this position myself, this is not something I want to happen--but I don't know what else can be done.
(Addit: Somehow I missed the second page. That was in reference to your last post on the first page.)
quote: Out of interest, how do you feel about mandatory auto liability insurance?
I think it is essential. In the case of auto liability you have the potential of causing harm to others. You might be a great driver and never have had a problem in the past but you could at any moment lose concentration and cause an accident. No matter how small the likelihood of such an event, it exists and must be insured to protect others. Liability is the key word here. We do not require that people that own their cars (no financing) have comprehensive insurance. They have the choice of deciding whether or not they think they need it. As this choice affects only the individual, it should be left up to the individual.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) It IS everyone's concern, so the costs could reasonably be spread across all participants.
There are a great many things that are everyone's concern. Food is a good example. It is in our interest as a society that people don't starve to death but we don't provide free food for everyone. We provide food both through the governement and private entities for those that can't afford to support themselves. I don't see why pregnancy should be treated differently. We are after all a capitalist not a communist country.
Just to make my position clear on socialized medicine, I agree with Bob that our current system is neither desirable nor sustainable. Something must be done. A solution that turns the program over to the government however is not ideal and could be disasterous in my opinion.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As this is providing pregnancy insurance through private entities, I hardly see it as a communist or socialist act. Its much the same as required car insurance, in fact, and you don't seem to see that as socialist or communist.
Pregnancy is a medical condition, and we have a large, established, public/private infrastructure for dealing with the expenses of medical conditions. I see no reason the government should create a separate infrastructure to deal with the expenses of pregnancies instead of requiring insurance companies to cover them.
Its just as much a redistribution of wealth in either case, and going through the insurance system is likely to be significantly more efficient, money-wise. Not to mention more transparent and closer to the problem.
Pregnancies have a massive impact on society, and society has long acknowledged that raising children well is one of our top priorities. This process starts with pregnancy, and I see no reason to punish children in poor and underinsured families by requiring them to go through risky, expensive pregnancies that will just reduce their parents' ability to care for them in the future due to cost. Required pregnancy coverage is an admirable step.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring to Bob's point that pregnancy is everyone's concern and so should be paid for by everyone in the context of my capitalist communist statement. I don't think he meant everyone who buys health insurance, I think he meant everyone.
You're right, forcing insurance companies to cover pregnancy is not communism or socialism, it is just intrusive government that causes higher premiums for those that will not become pregnant.
quote:I see no reason to punish children in poor and underinsured families by requiring them to go through risky, expensive pregnancies that will just reduce their parents' ability to care for them in the future due to cost.
This is an argument in favor of socialized medicine. Fine. But it has nothing to do with whether or not insurance companies should be forced to include pregnancy coverage in ALL policies. The poor in our current system often have no health insurance. Forcing insurance companies to offer only policies that include maternity coverage in no way helps the poor. Should a poor family that is no longer having children, be priced out of the market for health insurance because the government forces them to subsidize a rich family that is currently having children?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
