Nationalize Healthcare

[antsi]

All those numbnuts that want to Nationalize/Socialize medicine here should have to answer this VERY question: "If the rational thing to do is Nationalize Medical Care (Government Control), then why is Social Security and Medicare almost bankrupt?

I'm not a numbnuts and I don't want to nationalize or socialize medicine.

However, the reason Medicare and Medicaid are - not just bankrupt, but on track to bankrupt our entire country - is because we made very expensive promises to very large numbers of people, and then told ourselves we didn't have to pay for it.

You know those people who bought huge mansions they couldn't afford, and financed them with massive balloon payments scheduled to hit ten or fifteen years down the road? You know, the balloon payments that they ignored for years, until it was too late and now they're bankrupt? That's exactly the same thing we've done with our public health care.

 

[SigSense]

Antsi, I agree with you, but it wasn't you and I that created this mess. It was mainly the DEMOCRATIC party. I cringe when I hear bureaucrats speak of the "Social Security" Trust Fund. There hasn't been a defacto trust fund since 1964, when a Democrat named Lyndon Johnson changed the way in which Social Security funds were handled. Oh, I forgot to add the link before:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/12/business/AP-US-SocialSecurity.html?_r=1

 

[Indy317]

I really don't care for full on government health care, but it sickens me that health care is so costly now, even government is cutting jobs, or making full-time jobs part-time, just to avoid paying health care. It is happening at all levels of government. Hell, I have heard Danville is trying to put their health care on their employees, to the tune of a $5,000 out-of-pocket deductible.

The system is screwed. Government either has to get in, or get totally out. That means you can't provide health care for veterans, the poor, and the old. When you do that, you establish a baseline price. So hospitals and insurance companies use that as a starting point. Remember, we have to pay the CEOs tens of millions. If the government prices don't put those millions in their personal bank accounts, well the only option left is to raise prices for everyone else.

I personally think that co-pays need to go way up. The $20 co-pay is a joke. I know everyone here knows someone who doctor shops. They always think they have a health issue and they constantly go from doctor to doctor (because eventually the most recent doctor tells the person they are nuts). These people need to be paying $100-$150 in office visits. That would cut down on the paranoids abusing the system, hopefully.

Then you have the entire debt concept. Prices have gone up because everything else in the country went up in price. Everything else went up because people could borrow money for cheap and they did. Well, if home builders are raking in the millions, home improvement business owners are raking it in, schools are raking it in, food franchise owners are raking it in...of course the health care companies are going to want their cut of the new wealth.

My only problem I have with the current state of health care is that good people who lose a job should be on the hook for tens of thousands because they got a broken arm the three months they were looking for a job. I believe this because we are pumping out millions to illegal citizens, layabouts, and bums, some of whom are nothing more than 100% consumers...they produce nothing but costs the governments thousands a year. It is wrong for someone who did the right thing for 10 years, saved some money, paid down their mortgage, only to lose it all because their company closed without warning and they have no health care after cobra runs out. There should be a program through hospitals like Wishard where these people can pay $200-$300/month to get basic coverage with limits (ie: No doctor choice, etc.)

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

Time for the NHS to go back to basics - Telegraph

This is a heart wrenching story. If this ever happens here, to one of my family members you would be reading about another....

 

[sporter]

The current health care system sucks....at least the cost associated with getting health care. It's completely out of hand.

I have health insurance and a couple months back I crushed my middle finger on my right hand...almost cut it off.
I got 3 stitches, an X ray to tell me it was broke which we already knew and knew nothing could be done with and I never even seen a real doctor (only a nurse practitioner)
Bill was $1600...my end is paying about $1400 of that.

Sorry it's out of hand at this point I'll go for anything.
As long as the insurance industry has a hand in our health care it won't ever get better.

I am stuck paying for my trip to the ER and everyone elses trip to the ER.

Something needs done...I say make the care centers compete with each other. Eliminate health insurance.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

In the line of full disclosure I used to sell insurance specializing in life, annuities, & health.

That said I agree that there is a massive difference between "health care" and "how we pay" for health care.

One of the first issues that needs to be addressed is this: Is "health care" a right or a privilege? I have come to the conclusion that it is a mix. As far as I think emergency/traumatic health care is a right. Here is my thinking: A child who has no way to pay for health care is brought to the Hospital from an accident. The childs parents have no insurance and no way to pay. If health care is a privilege then the hospital would not be out of line to allow the child to die. If health care is a right then the hospital must take action to save the child. Now for this exercise I do not care what the law says today, I presume hypothetical absolutes to think through where I would be comfortable. Would you be 100% comfortable w/ the idea that allowing an injured person whom you KNOW cannot pay be allowed to die because they could not pay? If you are completely comfortable w/ a yes answer, then you can stand firmly in the priviledge camp. On the other hand if you answer no then you stand (to some degree) in the right camp.

No matter whether or not health care is a right or a priviledge it is logical that a more healthy public is a more productive group adding to the value of the whole. So it makes sense to want as many people as possible to be as healthy as possible in a completely utilitarian sense. Unhealthy people are a drain on the remaining healthy people, so in our own self interests we want everyone to be as healthy as possible if only for our own selfish reasons. If this is true then how do we pay for everyone to be healthy? Clearly our current system has significant problems. However, if you look at many other systems you will find that they ALL have regions of significant problems in one area or another.

In Canada they have a single payer system. As I understand it PRIMARY CARE is far significant to the system in the United States. This means that if you have the flu or need to go to your family doctor it is far easier than here in the USA. However, SECONDARY CARE is far worse. If you have cancer or some other ailment that requires advanced treatment you will fare worse. As most people go through life avoiding major problems you will of course find a preponderance of people question liking the Canadian system. What you need to focus on are all peoples and breaking down your results. I don't know if this has been done yet.

I do think President Clinton and now President Obama are 100% correct to address problems within our own system. I do also think that their leaning toward a single payer system is 100% wrong!

I work daily w/ folks whose only medical coverage is Medicaid (welfare insurance). These folks receive what I consider substandard care from their insurance provider.

That said, I think that many health care providers such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies have profiteered off of the private health insurance industry. We pay WAY more in the USA for drugs than in Canada, and in Canada the pharmaceutical companies are allowed a 10% profit. Ask anyone in business and that is a massive profit! What do you think they are making off of us?

Another problem is simply culture. It is easy in many countries for single payer to be better received because they have a tighter sense of community. Everyone speaks the same language, is of the same ethnic background, has a similar religion, etc. So their culture has an influence on how they think. Here in the USA our culture holds the cowboy, the mountain man, the RUGGED INDIVIDUAL in the highest regard. We hold self reliance in the highest esteem, not the herd mentality of other cultures. As such, I think it is very repulsive to our culture to be "sheeple", allowing Big Brother to dictate the terms under which we get our health care.

Yet another issue that must be discussed is the patients responsibility. For how long do we pay (either through private health insurance OR national coverage) for a 300 pound man or woman to receive heart medication, blood pressure medication, and a host of other treatments when that person takes ABSOLUTELY NO action to control the underlying cause of their health problem??? That said, some folks cannot control their weight, I am speaking about those who can. And it is not just weight. We could ALL take greater care of our bodies; quit smoking, lower our caffeine (this one is mine), take more walks. Where do we receive pressure to live a healthier life? And shoud we receive pressure?

I don't know what the answers are, but I do know there are a hell of a lot of questions that need to be addressed in regard to the health care issue.

I know for one I am against a single payer system in the United States.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Denny347]

To All,

In the line of full disclosure I used to sell insurance specializing in life, annuities, & health.

That said I agree that there is a massive difference between "health care" and "how we pay" for health care.

One of the first issues that needs to be addressed is this: Is "health care" a right or a privilege? I have come to the conclusion that it is a mix. As far as I think emergency/traumatic health care is a right. Here is my thinking: A child who has no way to pay for health care is brought to the Hospital from an accident. The childs parents have no insurance and no way to pay. If health care is a privilege then the hospital would not be out of line to allow the child to die. If health care is a right then the hospital must take action to save the child. Now for this exercise I do not care what the law says today, I presume hypothetical absolutes to think through where I would be comfortable. Would you be 100% comfortable w/ the idea that allowing an injured person whom you KNOW cannot pay be allowed to die because they could not pay? If you are completely comfortable w/ a yes answer, then you can stand firmly in the priviledge camp. On the other hand if you answer no then you stand (to some degree) in the right camp.

No matter whether or not health care is a right or a priviledge it is logical that a more healthy public is a more productive group adding to the value of the whole. So it makes sense to want as many people as possible to be as healthy as possible in a completely utilitarian sense. Unhealthy people are a drain on the remaining healthy people, so in our own self interests we want everyone to be as healthy as possible if only for our own selfish reasons. If this is true then how do we pay for everyone to be healthy? Clearly our current system has significant problems. However, if you look at many other systems you will find that they ALL have regions of significant problems in one area or another.

In Canada they have a single payer system. As I understand it PRIMARY CARE is far significant to the system in the United States. This means that if you have the flu or need to go to your family doctor it is far easier than here in the USA. However, SECONDARY CARE is far worse. If you have cancer or some other ailment that requires advanced treatment you will fare worse. As most people go through life avoiding major problems you will of course find a preponderance of people question liking the Canadian system. What you need to focus on are all peoples and breaking down your results. I don't know if this has been done yet.

I do think President Clinton and now President Obama are 100% correct to address problems within our own system. I do also think that their leaning toward a single payer system is 100% wrong!

I work daily w/ folks whose only medical coverage is Medicaid (welfare insurance). These folks receive what I consider substandard care from their insurance provider.

That said, I think that many health care providers such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies have profiteered off of the private health insurance industry. We pay WAY more in the USA for drugs than in Canada, and in Canada the pharmaceutical companies are allowed a 10% profit. Ask anyone in business and that is a massive profit! What do you think they are making off of us?

Another problem is simply culture. It is easy in many countries for single payer to be better received because they have a tighter sense of community. Everyone speaks the same language, is of the same ethnic background, has a similar religion, etc. So their culture has an influence on how they think. Here in the USA our culture holds the cowboy, the mountain man, the RUGGED INDIVIDUAL in the highest regard. We hold self reliance in the highest esteem, not the herd mentality of other cultures. As such, I think it is very repulsive to our culture to be "sheeple", allowing Big Brother to dictate the terms under which we get our health care.

Yet another issue that must be discussed is the patients responsibility. For how long do we pay (either through private health insurance OR national coverage) for a 300 pound man or woman to receive heart medication, blood pressure medication, and a host of other treatments when that person takes ABSOLUTELY NO action to control the underlying cause of their health problem??? That said, some folks cannot control their weight, I am speaking about those who can. And it is not just weight. We could ALL take greater care of our bodies; quit smoking, lower our caffeine (this one is mine), take more walks. Where do we receive pressure to live a healthier life? And shoud we receive pressure?

I don't know what the answers are, but I do know there are a hell of a lot of questions that need to be addressed in regard to the health care issue.

I know for one I am against a single payer system in the United States.

Regards,

Doug

Very well stated.

 

[dross]

To All,

In the line of full disclosure I used to sell insurance specializing in life, annuities, & health.

That said I agree that there is a massive difference between "health care" and "how we pay" for health care.

One of the first issues that needs to be addressed is this: Is "health care" a right or a privilege? I have come to the conclusion that it is a mix. As far as I think emergency/traumatic health care is a right. Here is my thinking: A child who has no way to pay for health care is brought to the Hospital from an accident. The childs parents have no insurance and no way to pay. If health care is a privilege then the hospital would not be out of line to allow the child to die. If health care is a right then the hospital must take action to save the child. Now for this exercise I do not care what the law says today, I presume hypothetical absolutes to think through where I would be comfortable. Would you be 100% comfortable w/ the idea that allowing an injured person whom you KNOW cannot pay be allowed to die because they could not pay? If you are completely comfortable w/ a yes answer, then you can stand firmly in the priviledge camp. On the other hand if you answer no then you stand (to some degree) in the right camp.

I think your reductio ad absurdum has led you into the fallacy of false dilemna. For your example to make sense, you must assume that a child would actually die because someone would refuse treatment. I believe that in the absence of government mandates on the matter, charity systems would flourish that would pick up the slack in these areas. Charities are always morally superior to government solutions, since charities persuade, and governments coerce. There is an established inverse relationship between charity and government caretaking.

That said, I will take your argument head on. In the abstract, yes, no one should be forced to provide services to another without compensation.

Health care can NEVER be a right, since you can never have a right that requires that something be taken from another by force. You can never have the right to the labor of another, period.

No matter whether or not health care is a right or a priviledge it is logical that a more healthy public is a more productive group adding to the value of the whole. So it makes sense to want as many people as possible to be as healthy as possible in a completely utilitarian sense. Unhealthy people are a drain on the remaining healthy people, so in our own self interests we want everyone to be as healthy as possible if only for our own selfish reasons. If this is true then how do we pay for everyone to be healthy?

Yes, we want everyone to be healthy, and yes, it would be better for everyone. The same could be said for many, many things in our lives. Freedom means that people may make poor choices, and they do in many areas of their lives. Freedom also means we must allow them to make those choices, even if society would be better off if they made different ones.

That said, I think that many health care providers such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies have profiteered off of the private health insurance industry. We pay WAY more in the USA for drugs than in Canada, and in Canada the pharmaceutical companies are allowed a 10% profit. Ask anyone in business and that is a massive profit! What do you think they are making off of us?

Canada pays less for drugs as does every country that has a single payer system. The reason for this is that the drug companies give them discounts under the threat that if they don't, the other countries will simply defy the drug company's patents. American drug companies drive the world's drug innovations. Americans pay for the R&D that Canada refuses to pay for. If America becomes single-payer, people we don't know are going to die wanting drugs that were never invented because we will kill the golden goose. I challenge your 10% profit assertion. That's an extraordinary number that you will have to back up.

Another problem is simply culture. It is easy in many countries for single payer to be better received because they have a tighter sense of community. Everyone speaks the same language, is of the same ethnic background, has a similar religion, etc. So their culture has an influence on how they think. Here in the USA our culture holds the cowboy, the mountain man, the RUGGED INDIVIDUAL in the highest regard. We hold self reliance in the highest esteem, not the herd mentality of other cultures. As such, I think it is very repulsive to our culture to be "sheeple", allowing Big Brother to dictate the terms under which we get our health care.

Another way to say this is that the people in other countries are more comfortable with socialism, which is to say they are more comfortable with higher levels of slavery. I hope we never become comfortable with slavery, but it appears we do so every day.

Yet another issue that must be discussed is the patients responsibility. For how long do we pay (either through private health insurance OR national coverage) for a 300 pound man or woman to receive heart medication, blood pressure medication, and a host of other treatments when that person takes ABSOLUTELY NO action to control the underlying cause of their health problem??? That said, some folks cannot control their weight, I am speaking about those who can. And it is not just weight. We could ALL take greater care of our bodies; quit smoking, lower our caffeine (this one is mine), take more walks. Where do we receive pressure to live a healthier life? And shoud we receive pressure?.

Hey, I have an idea! Let's not pay for them to receive that treatment. Let's let them pay it themselves. Problem solved.

I'm glad that you are against single payer.

Here's my solution. Stop having employers pay for insurance. It hides the cost. Let people buy their own. If people have to pay for their own insurance, they will put true market pressure on the system and the system will respond with a variety of products and solutions. Right now the provider market is protected by too many layers buffering it from market pressure. Let's let the free market work. Remove restrictions on PA's and nurse practitioners, so you may go to them if it's cheaper. Limit damages for suing doctors. Relax FDA restrictions, and give a drug company immunity if the FDA approves a drug. Right now drug companies pay millions and go through years of testing by the government, yet they are still liable to civil action. Why can't we sue the FDA if they approved it?

Let's let the market work before we try more government.

 

[Indy317]

That said, I think that many health care providers such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies have profiteered off of the private health insurance industry. We pay WAY more in the USA for drugs than in Canada, and in Canada the pharmaceutical companies are allowed a 10% profit. Ask anyone in business and that is a massive profit! What do you think they are making off of us?

I agree with most of your post but not the part above. I know people who work for Lilly. It costs _lots_ of money to develop drugs, more than people think. Imagine having to work 7 days a week, at least two hours on the weekends, for months on end. There are some experiments that require round the clock monitoring.

When the US gets socialized medicine, prepare for a quick and hard drop in new drugs coming to market...maybe forever. The only way new drugs will come to market is if the government uses tax money and pays the same wages and such as is paid now to universities to develop new drugs. Then the problem becomes a global issue, as countries will not develop drugs hoping some other government does it for them, then they can steal all the years of research and save those costs. It will take a UN type program to develop drugs, with countries throwing money into a pot and it getting divided up equally. However, once the UN and gov touches something like this, it always ends up costing just as much due to all the over head, red tape, and corruption.

 

[Jeremiah]

.

That said, I think that many health care providers such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies have profiteered off of the private health insurance industry. We pay WAY more in the USA for drugs than in Canada, and in Canada the pharmaceutical companies are allowed a 10% profit. Ask anyone in business and that is a massive profit! What do you think they are making off of us?



they may be making huge profits off us, but what does colt make off the sale of an AR-15? what does ford make on the price of a vehicle? restricting a company to a 10% profit is a sure way to ruin things, they will churn out more drugs so they draw revenue from more places, many of these won't be usefull they will just soud that way. COmpanies are going to make profit, if not they won't be in business. don't think for a second that you would go to work if you were only alloted house, transportation and food.

we could bring the cost of medical coverage down. get peopel to stop large lawsuits for malpractice, some compensation for sure butthey already screwed up, nothing can be done, going after millions in an effort recoup some medical screw up won't fix, find middle ground. then doctors wouldn't have to carry such high malpractice insurance.

quit frivolous lawsuits ingeneral, so hospitals can cut laiability insurance rates.

send letters to pharmaceutical companies, and get them to stop handing out free pens, throwing lunches at doctors offices to promote a drug, and tv ad campaings. the drugs we take should be evaluated on merit, and risk, not how nice a lunch the rep brought in, what type of "maralboro points" the doctor can aquire by selling a certain drug.

to start fixing a lot of things we need to take a loud, and active role in capitalism or else we are screwed. we keep forgetting that prices aren't set. we set them, by spending what they ask all we do is risk increase next year till, like gas, we can't take it any more. we need to start standing up and saying to corporations that we aren't going to pay these prices. eventually they'll get the hint.

yes this means a harder life , and mor cost on lots of people. but for the majority it means restricted diets and more exercise instead of blood pressure medicine, it means looking at options, and not always taking the easy route,

the easy route, the path that absolves of of making a choice ourselves, the need for security, put us where we are today, we need to take some hard roads for a while, or else this country will be no place to be.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

It was a typo. Sweden's population stands at a little over 9 million people and California's population stands at just under 37 million people. Estimates put about 2.2 million illegal immigrants in California (Illegal Immigrants in California). Data on illegal Swedish immigration wasn't immediately available, but just using the same percentages as CA would yield just under 540 thousand illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, Sweden recently limited medical benefits for illegal immigrants. (Sweden tightens healthcare rules for illegal immigrants - The Local). My point is that Sweden may have an illegal alien problem, but it is nowhere the size or scope of the problem we have in the US.

Going to have to make up your mind, boss. Either their system is strained by immigrants, or it isn't.

Actually, all the European countries are having immigration problems, too, and it's straining their public services, as well.

 

[Jack Ryan]

First off, I apologize for placing this here, if it's not supposed to be here. I figured... this is politics, so why not? Move if necessary...


Anyway, I'm debating with a friend of mine about nationalizing healthcare. The only issue is that I'm not too up and up with it. I don't know nearly the entire system, nor the advantages and disadvantages of nationalizing it. I can only go off of my personal guesses in response to his statements. I was just kind of looking for some pointers, and some knowledge on the matter.

Thank in advance.

Don't let a total lack of knowledge on any topic stop you from forming an opinion. Once you have one then just google and look for any thing you think supports what you want every one to believe with you.

Welcome to the herd.

 

[leftsock]

I can't wait for socialized medicine.

Our current systems of hospitals, insurance, and drug companies are geared towards turning a profit and not the wellness of society. I can't deny that there need to be incentives for individuals and organizations to do research, create medicines, perform medical practices, but the current end result is a huge financial drain on the many that require the use of these services.

Our current system offers health care for those who are wealthy and can afford it, health care for those who are too poor to pay for it (the tab picked up by the government (you know, our tax dollars at work )), and none for the majority of us who are somewhere in the middle (unless we're willing to become destitute or go into unreasonable debt).

There are also many factors that lead to this problem of unaffordable healthcare: the high cost of a medical education, high insurance costs, high drug costs, high wages paid to individuals, high equipment costs, corporate and individual greed, and others that don't come to mind.

After all that rambling, my beef is that healthcare isn't affordable to the average joe. What's the solution: I'm not sure, but the status quo isn't working, so I'm willing to give something reasonable a try. We already have many socialized services: police, fire, and mail, so let's give healthcare a try.

 

[dross]

I can't wait for socialized medicine.

Our current systems of hospitals, insurance, and drug companies are geared towards turning a profit and not the wellness of society. I can't deny that there need to be incentives for individuals and organizations to do research, create medicines, perform medical practices, but the current end result is a huge financial drain on the many that require the use of these services.

After all that rambling, my beef is that healthcare isn't affordable to the average joe. What's the solution: I'm not sure, but the status quo isn't working, so I'm willing to give something reasonable a try. We already have many socialized services: police, fire, and mail, so let's give healthcare a try.

The profit you speak of is what drives the excellence in our system, and prevents the shortages that socialized medicine produces.

We don't have to try it to find out how it works, we just have to observe the places where it's been tried. We can't just try it to see if we like it - once an entitlement is enacted, it never goes away. If we don't like it - and we won't - we're stuck with it.

There will always be self-interest in any system. If you politicize a system you just change the currency, you don't get rid of the "greed." It's just that political capital replaces monetary capital.

There are better ways to take care of our lesser citizens than making healthcare equally bad for all - except those with political clout, that is.

 

[leftsock]

There are better ways to take care of our lesser citizens than making healthcare equally bad for all - except those with political clout, that is.

I'm all ears. I need a way that doesn't bankrupt individuals who need healthcare.

 

[agentl074]

Medicare and Medicaid. The problem will only be more of a strain on the economic system if insurance is nationalized.

 

[dross]

I'm all ears. I need a way that doesn't bankrupt individuals who need healthcare.

See my post on the previous page where I give my solution.

No problems have a perfect solution. Life is series of tradeoffs. Don't however, take that to mean that all solutions are equal.

Socialism is slavery, and a little socialism is a little slavery. I prefer to remain as free as possible, even if it means my health may someday bankrupt me.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I can't wait for socialized medicine.

You don't have to wait, we already have it. We have had socialized health care for decades. We've had socialism form of government for decades.

All you are seeing now it the last few death throws every socialist society goes through before the total collapse. Then the rich tell the rest of the country to start over with the only thing they have left, their own boot straps and the country being full of the same stupid people it was full of ten years before starts all over down the same road as before.

 

[antsi]

My point is that Sweden may have an illegal alien problem, but it is nowhere the size or scope of the problem we have in the US.

True enough.

My point is that with a US population of 304 million, and 12 million illegal immigrants, illegals are about 4% of the US population. I don't think you can blame US health care costs being twice as expensive as any other developed country on a group that represents four percent of the population.

You don't have to wait, we already have it. We have had socialized health care for decades.

That's my point. We DO NOT have private health care in this country. We have a wierd mix of socialized and private models that in many ways is the worst of both worlds.

One potential advantage of private health care we have very little of is financial incentives for individuals to make cost-conscious health care decisions. When we use intensive care services to delay the death of a terminally ill loved one for a few more days, or demand a CT scan every time we bump or head, or to see a brain surgeon whenever we have a headache, or go to the ER for a minor problem instead of a doctor's office, we are adding thousands and tens of thousands of dollars of unnecessary to everyone else's health care bill. This is always true in our public health programs (Medicare, Medicaid) and with a few exceptions is generally also true in our so-called "private" health care plans.

We also have extremely high levels of government and regulatory oversight in health care. I am not proposing complete deregulation, but the current system has such Byzantine regulations and enormous amounts of certification, re-certification, and bureaucracy that add tremedously to cost while doing little to improve safety.

In a privatized market like the car industry, I can choose to drive a Honda that meets minimum safety standards, or pay more to get a Volvo that meets a higher safety standard. If the car market was like health care, I'd only get one choice: a $100,000 Nerf Car built with all kinds of extreme "safety engineering," much of which is counterproductive, misguided, and actually makes the car more dangerous.

We also have rules like COBRA that make it illegal to turn anyone away from a hospital. This includes people going to the ER for trivial or non-emergent problems and people who come in two or three times a week making up symptoms to obtain narcotics. These folks get the same $2-3000 (or higher) workup as people with real emergencies. This would never happen in a real privatized system.

 

[dross]

True enough.

My point is that with a US population of 304 million, and 12 million illegal immigrants, illegals are about 4% of the US population. I don't think you can blame US health care costs being twice as expensive as any other developed country on a group that represents four percent of the population.



That's my point. We DO NOT have private health care in this country. We have a wierd mix of socialized and private models that in many ways is the worst of both worlds.

One potential advantage of private health care we have very little of is financial incentives for individuals to make cost-conscious health care decisions. When we use intensive care services to delay the death of a terminally ill loved one for a few more days, or demand a CT scan every time we bump or head, or to see a brain surgeon whenever we have a headache, or go to the ER for a minor problem instead of a doctor's office, we are adding thousands and tens of thousands of dollars of unnecessary to everyone else's health care bill. This is always true in our public health programs (Medicare, Medicaid) and with a few exceptions is generally also true in our so-called "private" health care plans.

We also have extremely high levels of government and regulatory oversight in health care. I am not proposing complete deregulation, but the current system has such Byzantine regulations and enormous amounts of certification, re-certification, and bureaucracy that add tremedously to cost while doing little to improve safety.

In a privatized market like the car industry, I can choose to drive a Honda that meets minimum safety standards, or pay more to get a Volvo that meets a higher safety standard. If the car market was like health care, I'd only get one choice: a $100,000 Nerf Car built with all kinds of extreme "safety engineering," much of which is counterproductive, misguided, and actually makes the car more dangerous.

We also have rules like COBRA that make it illegal to turn anyone away from a hospital. This includes people going to the ER for trivial or non-emergent problems and people who come in two or three times a week making up symptoms to obtain narcotics. These folks get the same $2-3000 (or higher) workup as people with real emergencies. This would never happen in a real privatized system.

Good post. In other words, let's not knock the free market system until we actually try it. That's my analysis, too. The system is too protected from the pressure of the final consumer, who is too protected from the actual cost of their healthcare. Neither the providers or the consumers are forced to make healthy business decisions.

So the last thing we need to do is take a system that is sick from the amount of socialism (poison) already infecting it, and give it more of the same poison.