Canadian v. US healthcare

[Cail]

Maybe, maybe not. I give to charity substantially, and there's no profit in that at all.

[Zarathustra]

I just always thought the idea of Compassionate Conservative is that private sector can be more effective in providing almost anything than a bloated government. Too much waste, corruption, brokenness.

Problem is what motivation does the private sector have to do so? It's motivated by profit.

--A

Then how do you explain the good deals at Walmart? You're only thinking about one side of the equation--the providers--and not the consumers. The consumers want to maximize their buying power. In normal supply and demand, this is the force which balances the desire to make a profit, and reins in cost. Without that, they can charge whatever they want.

Health care is *always* motivated by profit, and that won't change with the government in charge. Costs are going up in the the Massachusetts system faster than the national average . . . how can this be if the profit is supposedly taken out of the system? Well, it's not taken out of the system. The doctors and hospitals still make money. And they make money in Canada and every other system in the world. The question isn't how to take profit out of the system (which would kill it), but how to maximize the dollars so that both consumer and provider are getting the best possible deal. The free market does this much more efficiently than any government system, and it does so in a way that retains the drive for innovation and competition.

Private schools vs public schools. Post office vs UPS. Massachusetts health care vs the rest of the country. Time after time we have already performed this experiment. In a country where the free market has made us the strongest, most innovative, most prosperous civilization in history, the debate should be over. But the desire for freebies blinds people to the truth.

[Seven Words]

An utterly unrestrained free market leads to atrocities. Sweatshops. Child Labor. Black Lung. Completely government run markets fail spectacularly. What is best is just enough government regulation (NOT, NOT government management) to avoid things like sweatshops. I think of government regulations in the market as a necessary evil. Remember the old skit with I think it was Lily Tomlin? "We're the telephone company".

[Zarathustra]

Seven Words, the free market begins with things like that. It leads to things like the most powerful, most prosperous, most generous civilization in the history of mankind.

[sindatur]

If the Government does succeed in implementing a Universal COverage plan, many, many outcomes could come about.

Insurance is the #1 expense to employing someone. If the Government took over and implemented Universal coverage, and the employers dropped coverage, that would drastically lower expenses. Then the question becomes, what would the employers dow ith that extra profit margin? Would they raise wages, hire more people, lower prices, invest in R&D and new profit potentials? These could all be great things for economy. But, what if the companies hide/pocket this extra profit? Giving bigger bonuses to the higher ups who are doing just fine, and do nothing to reward the workers, most of whom are balancing heavy workloads? What if the Corps get too used to this higher profit margin, and take more drastic actions with work force if for whatever reason the margin drops below this new level (although still higher than the old level)? Do companies need to be incentivised to "do the right thing" with the additional profit?

What will happen to the insurance industry? Will Private insurance industry crumble? What incentive does the Gov't insurance plan have to keeps rates reasonable without competition?

How does anyone know what the actual cost of medical care is or do anything to keep costs under control, if no one ever sees the costs? At least now with it coming out of the private sector pocket, we are aware of where costs are exhorbitant.

In my opinion, these are the questions we need to be debating, and need to find answers to. Congress needs to look into these things and make predictions and plan for these contingencies, not charge through, writing a 1000 page bill in a week, and cramming it through for a vote with only 24 or 48 hours to read and absorb it, before being forced to vote on. Didn't Pres. Obama promise a posting for a week before anything gets voted on? If Congress is going to make this happen, they need to look at what works and what doesn't in other countries and balance that against our cultural differences and our population differences

[aliantha]

Health care is *always* motivated by profit

Maybe it shouldn't be.

Maybe healthcare is one of those things -- like defense and education -- that should be provided to everyone, because it's in the best interests of society.

[Percipience]

Maybe healthcare is one of those things -- like defense and education -- that should be provided to everyone, because it's in the best interests of society.

The problem with this idea is that healthcare is open-ended. There is an ever increasing amount of technology, medicine, and expense associated with health care. We can (if we choose) dedicate 1000$/person for healthcare. Then some will not need it, and others will die for inadequate care. We could try to dedicate $1000 000/person but then we'll go bankrupt as a society. So then we need a complex system to decide who gets what and how it will be paid for. Essentially, insurance. But who decides and how? This is not nearly as easy as education where everyone generally has the same needs, and costs are fixable.

[aliantha]

Percipience (nice to see you in here, btw -- always good to have new blood! ), we already have a model for that. In fact, we have several models: Medicare, Medicaid, and the health insurance that members of Congress get.

I'm talking more about a philosophical shift -- a paradigm shift. If we, as a nation, decided it was in our society's best interest to have every citizen as healthy as possible, it could make all the difference. That means not just paying when people are sick, but funding wellness programs -- nutrition, preventive checkups, etc. Problems would be caught sooner, and people wouldn't worry that going to the doctor would bankrupt them. I have a feeling that if we approached it in that way, our healthcare costs would be lower.

As for costs, and healthcare has always been for profit, and so on: It's only in the past, what, century or two, that people have been able to make a lot of money as a doctor. Before that, they bartered their services. I'm certainly not saying that we should go back to the level of care that was available in those days, but the notion that people only ever provided healthcare for money is untrue.

[Zarathustra]

In fact, we have several models: Medicare, Medicaid, . . .

But isn't the fact that those are going bankrupt relevant at all?

I'm talking more about a philosophical shift -- a paradigm shift. If we, as a nation, decided it was in our society's best interest to have every citizen as healthy as possible, it could make all the difference.

It is not the responsibility of the government to make us healthy. This is not in the Constitution. I don't want my health in the hands of the government. Your "philosophical shift" is away from the founding principles of this nation.

That means not just paying when people are sick, but funding wellness programs -- nutrition, preventive checkups, etc. Problems would be caught sooner, and people wouldn't worry that going to the doctor would bankrupt them. I have a feeling that if we approached it in that way, our healthcare costs would be lower.

Costs are not lower in Massachusetts. You have to have more than a feeling that costs will be lower. You have to have an economic plan. I agree that if people were healthier, health care costs would be lower. But you don't need the government to make you have proper nutrition (are you saying the government should pay for our food, too?), or seek preventive care. Even with a high deductible insurance plan like our HSA, preventive care is 100% covered. We pay $40/month for 4 people! Who can't afford this? Is $10/week really going to bankrupt anyone?? Skip one meal a week and you can pay for this. Cut back on the cigarettes by half a carton and you can pay for this. Cable, Internet, cell phones . . . all this cost more than our health insurance. Surely health is more important than these luxuries.

Maybe healthcare is one of those things -- like defense and education -- that should be provided to everyone, because it's in the best interests of society.

You could literally say this about anything. Everyone having homes would be in the best interest of society. Everyone having cars would be in the best interest of society. Everyone having a personal computer would be in the best interest of society. Everyone having food would be in the best interest of society.

The best thing for society would be everyone taking care of their responsibilities themselves.

[aliantha]

<throws up hands> I give up.

I still don't agree. But I'm not getting anywhere, so there's no point in continuing the argument.

[Seven Words]

Seven Words, the free market begins with things like that. It leads to things like the most powerful, most prosperous, most generous civilization in the history of mankind.

But to break that beginning paradigm, it took government intervention, and ongoing regulation. As I said, a necessary evil, to be kept to the absolute bare minimum necessary.

[Zarathustra]

Seven Words, the free market begins with things like that. It leads to things like the most powerful, most prosperous, most generous civilization in the history of mankind.

But to break that beginning paradigm, it took government intervention, and ongoing regulation. As I said, a necessary evil, to be kept to the absolute bare minimum necessary.

I can agree with that.

[Plissken]

I just always thought the idea of Compassionate Conservative is that private sector can be more effective in providing almost anything than a bloated government. Too much waste, corruption, brokenness.

Problem is what motivation does the private sector have to do so? It's motivated by profit.

--A

Then how do you explain the good deals at Walmart? You're only thinking about one side of the equation--the providers--and not the consumers. The consumers want to maximize their buying power. In normal supply and demand, this is the force which balances the desire to make a profit, and reins in cost. Without that, they can charge whatever they want.

I think you've answered your own question, here.

If you're going to die without it, you're not going to spend your time price shopping. Thus, the difference between a Flat Screen TV and Healthcare.

[Ki]

Ali--I know EXACTLY how you feel. Especially when it comes to healthcare, since that is an area that is near and dear to my heart. That's part of the reason why I stay out of the tank.

Malik told me that someone here asked if health insurance companies would go out of business with nationalized health care. I couldn't wait to answer it. They won't. Who do you think is going to administer these nationalized plans? Health insurers already have the provider networks and the systems in place to administer plans. Hell, private health insurers are administering CMS plans as we speak and have for a few years. Just so you know...major health insurers have strategies in place to offer bids etc to administer nationalized plans. They've been planning it for years in anticipation of a democrat president.

[sindatur]

Ali--I know EXACTLY how you feel. Especially when it comes to healthcare, since that is an area that is near and dear to my heart. That's part of the reason why I stay out of the tank.

Malik told me that someone here asked if health insurance companies would go out of business with nationalized health care. I couldn't wait to answer it. They won't. Who do you think is going to administer these nationalized plans? Health insurers already have the provider networks and the systems in place to administer plans. Hell, private health insurers are administering CMS plans as we speak and have for a few years. Just so you know...major health insurers have strategies in place to offer bids etc to administer nationalized plans. They've been planning it for years in anticipation of a democrat president.

Thanks that answers part of it, but, would they go with multiple providers, or create a monopoly, and if a monopoly is created, what will be the result?

[Cybrweez]

Any time conservatives have suggested that the moral position on abortion is to safeguard the unborn child or that the moral thing is to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Left always responds with “How dare you attempt to impose your values on the rest of us!” Yesterday, President Obama tried to assert that it is “a moral imperative” to impose a tremendous debt burden on you, your children and future generations to create a government-run, socialized health care scheme that will inevitably end up rationing the care you receive. And the reaction from the media and the Left ranged from a yawn to wild applause.

But when it comes to nationalized health care, not everyone agrees with the president’s “moral imperative” claim. The American Medical Association yesterday announced its opposition to the president’s plan. If the nation’s doctors don’t want it, that should give us all second thoughts. Moreover, recent Rasmussen polls find that overwhelming majorities of the American people are strongly opposed to key elements of Obama’s plan.

For example, 61% of likely voters oppose the idea of a health insurance mandate that requires everyone to buy some form of health insurance. And 80% of likely voters are opposed to providing government coverage to illegal aliens, who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, account for nearly a quarter of the 46 million uninsured you hear so much about. Remember that the next time you hear it.

I almost put in Undistinguished thread, due to the moral imperative part. It's nice to see someone in Demo-land actually admit policies are dictating morals. But, the quarter million illegal, unisured aliens are a major factor in healthcare discussion.

[Avatar]

...Just so you know...major health insurers have strategies in place to offer bids etc to administer nationalized plans. They've been planning it for years in anticipation of a democrat president.

Only makes sense of course.

Then how do you explain the good deals at Walmart? You're only thinking about one side of the equation--the providers--and not the consumers. The consumers want to maximize their buying power. In normal supply and demand, this is the force which balances the desire to make a profit, and reins in cost. Without that, they can charge whatever they want.

The good deals are because they want the consumers to come to them, not somebody else. I get the impression, (we don't have them here obviously), that this particular company relies on a lot of volume to counteract the better deals.

But my point wasn't that the private sector will charge whatever it wants, (All they can charge is what the market can bear), it was that their own margins must figure into any and all decisions they make. Their concern therefore is not with social wellbeing, (for example), and although we could argue it might factor in, it will cetainly not dominate the decision making process.

--A

[Seven Words]

Any time conservatives have suggested that the moral position on abortion is to safeguard the unborn child or that the moral thing is to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Left always responds with “How dare you attempt to impose your values on the rest of us!” Yesterday, President Obama tried to assert that it is “a moral imperative” to impose a tremendous debt burden on you, your children and future generations to create a government-run, socialized health care scheme that will inevitably end up rationing the care you receive. And the reaction from the media and the Left ranged from a yawn to wild applause.

But when it comes to nationalized health care, not everyone agrees with the president’s “moral imperative” claim. The American Medical Association yesterday announced its opposition to the president’s plan. If the nation’s doctors don’t want it, that should give us all second thoughts. Moreover, recent Rasmussen polls find that overwhelming majorities of the American people are strongly opposed to key elements of Obama’s plan.

For example, 61% of likely voters oppose the idea of a health insurance mandate that requires everyone to buy some form of health insurance. And 80% of likely voters are opposed to providing government coverage to illegal aliens, who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, account for nearly a quarter of the 46 million uninsured you hear so much about. Remember that the next time you hear it.

I almost put in Undistinguished thread, due to the moral imperative part. It's nice to see someone in Demo-land actually admit policies are dictating morals. But, the quarter million illegal, unisured aliens are a major factor in healthcare discussion.

First, there's a trick phrasing in that poll you mentioned...requiring to buy some form of insurance coverage.

As far as the uninsured illegals....give them JUST ENOUGH medical care so they're not going to DIE, and get them OUT OF THE COUNTRY. and deportees found back in need some serious punishment to deter such behavior.

[Farsailer]

One of the biggest budget problems they have in the UK health system is the mandate to include illegal immigrants and non-resident relatives of existing immigrants in the health care. This is resulting in numerous such people intentionally getting into the UK for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the free care.

If the illegals are allowed the same non-paying access to our healthcare system as our existing uninsured citizens and legal residents, we're not going to see any cost control there. So I agree with Seven that the illegals should only be entitled to the minimum care standards and if they need anything more than that, they need to pay for it or else get it at home.

[Zarathustra]

I think you've answered your own question, here.

If you're going to die without it, you're not going to spend your time price shopping. Thus, the difference between a Flat Screen TV and Healthcare.

Most of health care costs aren't for life-and-death situations.

But it's a fair point to bring up. If it's an issue where time matters, you're probably not going to shop around. But you're also not going to just run out and blindly look for a doctor, stopping at the first one you happen to see. Hopefully, you would have already looked at the market enough to know which doctors are in your area, and when you do this you could also see which are the ones offering the fairest price. The problem right now which makes this difficult and time consuming is lack of transparency. Most doctors and hospitals make it extremely difficult for the consumer to be empowered with knowledge of their pricing scheme. That will change as consumer-driven health care becomes more widespread (and it is in fact becoming more wide spread--HSA plans are growing because they save people money and give more choice, options, and control).

However, your point about a life-and-death situation makes my argument, I believe. If this life-saving treatment is out of your financial reach, this is precisely when it will benefit you the most to shop around. If a better deal means the difference between life and death, you bet your ass people will try to find treatment within their budget.

The idea that life is so precious that we can't even consider cost is precisely what makes health care cost so much. That's why doctors and hospitals got you exactly where they want you, at their mercy, willing to pay whatever they ask because you have no choice. It's damn near extortion, and I don't know why anyone wouldn't jump at the chance to be empowered to tell them you'll take your business elsewhere.