Healthcare "reform"?

[Southtown]

I'm not sure I follow. Money comes from the insured.

Yeah, well, at a declining rate, anyway.

 

If a business chooses not to [or can't] pay for insurance for their employees, they pay a tax.

This will filter down and suck income from the current employees and/or deplete job opportunities from prospective employees which will in turn negatively affect their ability to afford health insurance.

 

Savings come from other arenas. This all adds together to a larger pool. Seems clear to me.

This concerns me the most, "other [ill-defined] arenas." (see two quotes down)

 

Medicare is bleeding money because of the prescription drug benefit passed in 2003 under the Bush administration, who wrote into law a gigantic handout to the pharmaceutical industry by disallowing cost negotiation options for bulk purchase of meds. Basically, government pays full retail instead of lower costs due to volume purchase as a result of the law. They passed this (Medicare Part D) without having any way to pay for it. This is part of the reason we are in so much debt with China.

I agree that was a stupid bill. How does healthcare reform propose to reverse (or compensate for) that effect? Is it implied with the committee? Why not just repeal it explicitly?

 

The current plans being discussed are mandated to be budget neutral. Budget neutral means that the bill won't pass if they have not identified ways to pay for all identified expenditures. If you want to spend money on something in healthcare, you must have a way to pay for it (whether that entail a new source of revenue or a new cost reduction somewhere else). Why is that a problem?

The problem is ill-definition. Two-thirds of the projected costs are said to be amenable by a waste reduction committee. The question still begs: How will we cut costs? I can understand certain peoples' fears, although I don't agree with the 'temperature' of certain arguments these days.

 

Medicare and others are also losing money because of a failure to pass more taxes on goods which lead to more health problems... soda machines and candy machines in schools, as a small example... Taxes on products with corn syrup as another.

I am also for consumption based taxes as opposed to taxes on productivity such as income tax and mandatory (income-based) social security/medicare withholdings. (Actually, it would seem that we're all paying mandatory premiums already.) Income-based taxes incentivise nothing but scraping by, paycheck to paycheck. Whereas consumption-based taxes can influence almost any aspect of our society.

 

Also, a failure to pass taxes like cap and trade, which in addition to helping us to pay for these programs has the added benefit of helping the environment... with the long term benefit of better health (poor environment leads to higher frequency of dangerous health issues and cancer).

The extra overhead on these industries WILL filter down to the middle and lower classes. It's just smart business.

 

A single payer system is the only way to get the leverage we need to cover everyone at low cost.

How about disallowing state-imposed restrictions? Won't 40+ introduced competitors have a more profound effect on the premiums/benefits ratio than just one not-for-profit public option? Why haven't we tried that yet, and why is it not in this reform bill? You can't say that the free market isn't providing competitive health care with one hand while restricting their competition with the other. It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

Also, if the government is so good at medical insurance models, why not simply regulate the industry? We could ban rescission, we could ban coverage refusals on discriminatory bases, etc. We could create a committee of non-partisan medical professionals that do nothing but regulate insurance companies, but who aren't necessarily aiming at a certain cost quota.

 

It's the only way to ensure that everyone pays into the system instead of gaming it... where "gaming" equals not having insurance, then ... when they get really really sick... signing up at the last minute... reaping the benefit of everyone elses payments to the system without ever having made their own.

I'll agree. Mandatory coverage seems to be the only way around that. But care must be taken not to make situations worse by penalizing homeless people, failing businesses, etc.

 

We are all required to have insurance on our vehicles. Why do so many people have a problem with mandating insurance for our health? Are cars more important than our families or something? That just doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess YMMV.

We aren't taxed for not having car insurance. We're just prohibited from driving. Turning people away from the ER, however is just not acceptable.

[lawcat]

I am also for consumption based taxes as opposed to taxes on productivity such as income tax and mandatory (income-based) social security/medicare withholdings. (Actually, it would seem that we're all paying mandatory premiums already.) Income-based taxes incentivise nothing but scraping by, paycheck to paycheck. Whereas consumption-based taxes can influence almost any aspect of our society.

 

This explains your position towards government pretty well. You are essentially disatisfied with the government and want the complete overhaul of the system. IMO, you are very likely to be against anything done on the federal level, until the overhaul is complete. I do not think it is possible to have a productive discourse on those premises.

[InfiniteNow]

I agree that was a stupid bill. How does healthcare reform propose to reverse (or compensate for) that effect? Is it implied with the committee? Why not just repeal it explicitly?

Well, sure... I guess we could do that, but then our senior citizens would no longer be able to afford their meds, and we'd have more mass migrations of elderly going to Canada to buy their prescriptions en masse, exactly as we did prior to 2003. The current healthcare reform, instead of simply repealing this and making the elderly fend for themselves, simply put provisions in place such that we can negotiate lower costs for bulk purchases, instead of paying retail value.

 

 

The problem is ill-definition. Two-thirds of the projected costs are said to be amenable by a waste reduction committee. The question still begs: How will we cut costs? I can understand certain peoples' fears, although I don't agree with the 'temperature' of certain arguments these days.

To answer this question, all you have to do is read about it. CBO has some good information on their site. Your fear is understandable, but it should be alleviated by spending time educating yourself (in other words, it's not a good argument, since it's countered by the facts and shows that you haven't invested the time to understand those facts).

 

 

How about disallowing state-imposed restrictions? Won't 40+ introduced competitors have a more profound effect on the premiums/benefits ratio than just one not-for-profit public option? Why haven't we tried that yet, and why is it not in this reform bill? You can't say that the free market isn't providing competitive health care with one hand while restricting their competition with the other.

So, you're suggesting that all citizens be able to purchase health insurance from providers in other states, instead of being limited to providers in their own states? Is that correct?

 

If so, do tell me... Are insurance providers in other states really that markedly different? Are they the utopia of insurance coverage... and the folks in Idaho have access to a level of coverage that is unheard of in New Mexico? I mean, really? We are all basically getting the same poor pathetic service no matter what state we live in. Going to a provider in another state isn't going to change that to any great extent. It's not like some states are the Xanadu of health insurance coverage trying to keep it all for themselves.

 

The failures in the current system are not the result of restrictions of going outside the state for coverage, since coverage in all 50 states is roughly equivalent and that equivalency is in how expensive and low quality they are.

 

 

We could ban rescission, we could ban coverage refusals on discriminatory bases, etc. We could create a committee of non-partisan medical professionals that do nothing but regulate insurance companies, but who aren't necessarily aiming at a certain cost quota.

You keep failing to acknowledge how the cost quotas and rationing are EXACTLY what we are experiencing now from private insurers. It's time to realize that you are advocating a position where we retain the existing system despite the fact that it suffers from the exact failures you are trying to use in your arguments against single payer care.

 

 

I'll agree. Mandatory coverage seems to be the only way around that.

And yet you continue to argue based on misinformation and fear, essentially standing up in support of the current broken system. It is you who is speaking out of both sides of your mouth, my good man. :doh:

 

I appreciate the fact that you've acknowledged this simple fact, as that is the basis of this issue... So, let's go from there. Mandatory coverage is the only way to ensure coverage for all, to maximize care regardless of how much money you earn, and to do so at minimal cost to each of us as an individual.

 

 

We aren't taxed for not having car insurance. We're just prohibited from driving. Turning people away from the ER, however is just not acceptable.

Isn't the comment "it's just not acceptable to turn people away from the ER" an argument directly in support of the position for which I have been advocating, and an argument against your own?

 

Also, your analogy is broken. People are prohibited from driving when they don't have auto insurance, but people are NOT prohibited from getting sick or having a catastrophic illness when they don't have health insurance. We don't have a choice of not getting sick, so we need coverage in case we do. So... back to the question I asked originally: Why are so many people okay with mandatory auto insurance, but not okay with mandatory health insurance? Are our cars more important than our health? I just don't get it...

 

 

Seriously, Southtown... I consider you a friend, but if I'm gonna be sincere with you, I have to point out that your entire post was based on slippery slopes and fear mongering. Those are very poor foundations to use for an intelligent I argument. I think you know this about me... I will readily listen to (and change my mind as a result of) a quality argument if one is presented to me, but I'm not hearing any coming from those on the opposition side.

[HydrogenBond]

There is another angle to the healthcare concern, connected to the free market. Let me explain this with a real life example. Currently there is a free market fad connected to organic food. If you put the word organic on the box, a group will buy it. If one believes or has faith in the extra health value, this is an extra cost for healthcare that is not covered by insurance. You have to pay extra out of pocket.

 

If enough people get irrational for this, and lobby for it to be included into insurance, we would increase the cost even further. The effect is the free market creating demand for new markets and then the herd runs with it.

 

This all comes down to not making it clear, there is a hierarchy when it comes to science studies. The best studies are rational or based on cause and effect. One exception can render a rational theory invalid or create the need for an addendum. This is tier 1. Empirical studies allow exceptions without the need for revision. This is tier 2. A special form of empirical, called risk analysis, can allow more exceptions than valid data and still remain functional, without the need for revision. This is tier 3.

 

For example, the swine flue has effected thousands but we will make 160 million vaccine doses. At the rational level that means 159,000,000 doses may be irrational. But using tier three risk to make people irrational, they will never see this. If science was only allowed to use tier 1, before entering the free market, we may only need 1 millions does. Instead with tier 2,3 we will increase the cost 16000%.

 

Since medical science is mostly tier 2 and 3, the free market has the right to use the same mid and low level empirical approach, if this is the state of the art. It should not be forced to use tier 1 when science doesn't. Let me give example of this. A low cholesterol diet can lower the risk the heart disease. If I can find one example where this is invalid this is not a rational study. There are plenty of exceptions and nobody blinks an eye. This is fine with tier 2 and may be cutting edge with tier 3.

 

The free market sees this and will make their own tier 2 claim. Say I own a bubble gum factory. I can say my bubble gun is cholesterol free and therefore promotes good heart health. This is not tier 1 or rational, but it is tier 2, just like the science. To market even better, I can also use tier 3, and fear, which is also used by science. Eating my zero cholesterol bubble gum will lower the risk of heart disease. All I have to do is show 1 in a million and it is valid level 3. I indeed lowered the risk. The other 999,999 exceptions don't matter to level 3 science. One may notice, the more exceptions allowed within the study, the farther from rational we get. This means we irrational is being blended with rational allowing us to cater to emotion. Health care is an emotional or irrational issue because of tier 2,3 science, since the exceptions allowed, cater to the irrational in us. A rational science standard could help this.

[InfiniteNow]

Free market concepts do not apply to healthcare, since our health is not a commodity which we can live without. Our health is not like a television or a car, as you can choose not to have a car or not to have a television, but you cannot choose not to get sick and need medical assistance.

[HydrogenBond]

If I was to reform the healthcare system I would do it in stages. During the first phase, two basic changes would occur. First, let the government take over medical care with costs higher than a certain amount, i.e., catastrophic care. This will remove the big ticket items from the premium calculations, allowing insurance premiums to drop. It will also allow more to enter the market. The free market will take care of the rest, just as it has been.

 

The second step is for government to take over all aspects of medical malpractice. We should socialize this aspect of medical-legal system, so the free market mentality isn't driving up costs. The windfall that doctors will get, not having to pay malpractice premiums should then be under trickle down economics. Maybe to help them do the right thing, 50% of the value saved can go to provide care to those without insurance. This won't cover everyone but it is a start. Let this reach a steady state, and then phase 2.

 

There are always cost saving in economies of scale. If you sell a lot of units, you can make less per unit and still make a nice profit due to the volume sales. This means the goal of the free market health care system should be a system that allows everyone the option to benefit by economies of scale.

 

For example, as a community service, what would happen if big companies, like Microsoft or IBM, offered 5000 low-moderate income members of the local community the option to participate in a healthcare program. Microsoft can get insurance at wholesale rates and maybe even cheaper for itself, due to the increased economies of scale. Right now, the independent contractor might only be able to buy the more expensive retail or reseller insurance. This won't cover everyone, but once costs go down further, due to economies of scale, competition will appear in the insurance industry for the bigger group plans. This will shake it down and trim the fat, passing on further cost savings.

[Southtown]

This explains your position towards government pretty well. You are essentially disatisfied with the government and want the complete overhaul of the system. IMO, you are very likely to be against anything done on the federal level, until the overhaul is complete. I do not think it is possible to have a productive discourse on those premises.

No. I'm not necessarily against anything short of a complete overhaul. Though, I do have this small-government ideal that I would like to see us work towards. I see the size of government as being inversely proportional to economic vitality, remedied only by printing more money, and I see economic vitality as being inversely proportional to the requisite magnitude of entitlement programs. Vicious circle.

 

Well, sure... I guess we could do that, but then our senior citizens would no longer be able to afford their meds, and we'd have more mass migrations of elderly going to Canada to buy their prescriptions en masse, exactly as we did prior to 2003. The current healthcare reform, instead of simply repealing this and making the elderly fend for themselves, simply put provisions in place such that we can negotiate lower costs for bulk purchases, instead of paying retail value.

That is true...

 

To answer this question, all you have to do is read about it. CBO has some good information on their site. Your fear is understandable, but it should be alleviated by spending time educating yourself (in other words, it's not a good argument, since it's countered by the facts and shows that you haven't invested the time to understand those facts).

Yeah well, try as I might to learn things alone, sometimes I need help.

 

So, you're suggesting that all citizens be able to purchase health insurance from providers in other states, instead of being limited to providers in their own states? Is that correct?

 

If so, do tell me... Are insurance providers in other states really that markedly different? Are they the utopia of insurance coverage... and the folks in Idaho have access to a level of coverage that is unheard of in New Mexico? I mean, really? We are all basically getting the same poor pathetic service no matter what state we live in. Going to a provider in another state isn't going to change that to any great extent. It's not like some states are the Xanadu of health insurance coverage trying to keep it all for themselves.

 

The failures in the current system are not the result of restrictions of going outside the state for coverage, since coverage in all 50 states is roughly equivalent and that equivalency is in how expensive and low quality they are.

Rediculous. Companies need sustained growth in order to keep and gain investors. If the interstate regulations were abolished, insurance companies would start to trend upwards or downwards to a greater degree than before, especially with Wall Street shifting funds from losers to winners. Then the insurance companies would be faced with a choice, either offer better prices and services or shrink into obscurity.

 

You keep failing to acknowledge how the cost quotas and rationing are EXACTLY what we are experiencing now from private insurers.

No we're not. ERs are required to take people, and that raises premiums which in turn causes policy droppage.

 

It's time to realize that you are advocating a position where we retain the existing system despite the fact that it suffers from the exact failures you are trying to use in your arguments against single payer care.

The arguments for single payer care are made possible by Congress refusing to enforce discrimination laws against rescission by the insurance companies while also failing to promote a competitive free market environment.

 

And yet you continue to argue based on misinformation and fear, essentially standing up in support of the current broken system. It is you who is speaking out of both sides of your mouth, my good man. ;)

I'm voicing concern for the unforeseen consequences. You can always prove me wrong with these facts you speak of. Those who know so much about this bill should want to clear the air instead of just shutting out people like me who don't know everything.

 

Isn't the comment "it's just not acceptable to turn people away from the ER" an argument directly in support of the position for which I have been advocating, and an argument against your own?

I haven't argued against mandatory coverage, yet.

 

Also, your analogy is broken. People are prohibited from driving when they don't have auto insurance, but people are NOT prohibited from getting sick or having a catastrophic illness when they don't have health insurance. We don't have a choice of not getting sick, so we need coverage in case we do. So... back to the question I asked originally: Why are so many people okay with mandatory auto insurance, but not okay with mandatory health insurance? Are our cars more important than our health? I just don't get it...

That's exactly my point. And it's your analogy not mine.

[InfiniteNow]

No. I'm not necessarily against anything short of a complete overhaul. Though, I do have this small-government ideal that I would like to see us work towards. I see the size of government as being inversely proportional to economic vitality

Well, China proves your assertion wrong.

 

 

No we're not. ERs are required to take people, and that raises premiums which in turn causes policy droppage.

Yet another argument in favor of providing care to everyone so premiums are held relatively steady.

 

 

The arguments for single payer care are made possible by Congress refusing to enforce discrimination laws against rescission by the insurance companies while also failing to promote a competitive free market environment.

Southie... I'll be blunt. You don't want a free market health care system. To be blunt, nobody in our country would accept free market healthcare. We would never allow it, neither the religious whackjobs nor the atheist liberals. Nobody would let such a thing stand.

 

A free market healthcare system is one in which people who cannot afford to care for themselves are allowed to get sicker and die. Bodies would pile up in the streets, children would be orphaned, and our society would quickly resemble something out of the middle ages.

 

The populace in our country would NEVER for one moment allow a free market healthcare system, since such a system would allow the poor to die in large numbers, as the free market approach is one which caters to those who are privileged and can afford things.

 

Now that this has been established, it's time to wake up to the fact that free market principles do not apply to healthcare, and it's time for us as a community to come up with the most intelligent and logical alternative... All indicators suggest that most logical and intelligent alternative is a single payer system.

 

 

I'm voicing concern for the unforeseen consequences.

I completely understand. It's called a slippery slope argument, and is a logical fallacy not worthy of any of our time or energy. You may as well be arguing that the passage of a single payer system will result in people sodomizing infants. It has no basis, and is not an argument that is in any way, shape, or form grounded in reality.

 

 

Those who know so much about this bill should want to clear the air instead of just shutting out people like me who don't know everything.

Now, that's not fair at all. I have taken a lot of time, and put forth a lot of effort to explain my position and articulate my argument as clearly as possible. I have supported my assertions with facts, and I have demonstrated a consistency in terms of applying objectivity and logic.

 

Not once have I shut you out. I have gone to great lengths to remain calm and friendly in my responses to you, since I do, in fact, see you as a friend... and I want to nourish that friendship in the long-term.

 

I have not shut you out. I have simply demonstrated where your position is weak, and provided counter arguments which show clearly which side of this issue is the better supported one.

 

 

Now... speaking of well supported arguments, can you make any in opposition to single payer health care which are not rooted in fear mongering, slippery slopes, and other logical fallacies? If not, I strongly encourage you to concede your position and consider exploring why I (and so many others) argue in favor of a single payer approach.

 

 

In the meantime, if you'd like to see how they make this work in other countries, this special from Frontline last year was really easy to follow, and brilliantly done. I encourage you to spend 50 minutes and watch it. It really helps to break down some of the preconceptions being bandied about regarding universal coverage.

Frontline Special: Sick Around the World

[InfiniteNow]

This guy breaks down the costs of our existing system pretty clearly.

 

 

The Burden of Private and Employer-Based Plans | Tangled Up in Blue Guy

I think it essential in discussing the plans proposed in Congress for Health Care Reform to have a grasp of the current situation, so that people have a broader base of knowledge when discussing the issue. Sure, the enemies of change can talk about “death panels, Nazi care, tort reform, being forced to pay for abortions” and all of the other aspects of a single-payer or public options that fit onto a hand-drawn sign, but without a recognition of the current situation they are in effect limiting themselves to a flawed interpretation of the issue.

 

<...>

 

Like I have been saying: If we stop looking at the “socialism” label, we can see how a government plan makes capitalism stronger and furthers our competitive edge.

 

 

 

 

Here, too:

 

What the climate campaign can tell us about health care (and vice versa)

The irrational, anti-intellectual, conspiracy-mongering response of climate change denialists and pseudoskeptics have long puzzled me. I just don't understand why so many people would choose to reject the expertise of those who have devoted their professional lives to the study of a subject that doesn't lend itself to armchair quarterbacking. Much has been written about the lack of respect for science in certain American circles in the past couple of years (Unscientific America by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, The Assault on Reason by Al Gore, The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby) and there's a long list of explanations. None of which do I find satisfying.

 

But the opposition to public health insurance makes even less sense to me. I've found my Canadian-raised self explaining to true blue Americans why a single-payer public system ends up costing a country less and produces superior results (longer lifespans, healthier citizens, fewer dead newborn and mothers, etc.). For some reason they just can't accept that private health insurance will always cost more because you have to add a profit margin to the bottom line.

 

"Why are you so attached to paying more and getting less?" I ask. You can almost see the logic circuits frying. I am reminded of the scene in the original Star Trek where Kirk and his crew shut down the evil androids by feeding them logically impossible statements (The episode is called "I, Mudd.")

 

It's not brain surgery. It's not rocket science. It's not even high-school math. It's axiomatic.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is another angle to the healthcare problem. Back say 50 years ago, males were more reluctant, than today, to use the health care system, beyond emergency care. It was expansive and the family came first. Working men would live in pain. If you were a male from one of the big wars, life at war was a huge risk. The risks of peace time were nothing. The idea was to cowboy up and don't be a wimp. If you can march 3 days in the mud and fight, don't panic if you sneeze.

 

The women back then were more likely to use the medical system. They were used to taking care of husband, children and home. At times, they occasionally needed to be taken care of. They would go to the doctor, who was a father figure, who would nurture them. Some would be regulars to get all the mother's little helpers, that came along. Mothers would also try to bring the children to the doctor, to be by the book of the cultural rules.

 

Since that past time, social changes like the break up of the family, and the increasing singular role of women rising children, took away the cowboy up influence of the males as head of household and family. The children had the more dominant female for examples which historically were the ones who most used the medical system. Eventually, the younger males started to cowboy down being a little more feminine and fragile.

 

Another effect that had an impact, during the same time, was the rise of atheism. A religious person would leave it in God's hands. Death was only a movement to another plane, etc. Whether this is true of not it used less resources. The atheist is more afraid and won't take any risk. They don't have anybody in heaven looking out for them and death, well, that is it. They need to walk on eggshells, requiring more resources.

 

Back 50 years ago, cowboy-up falls off the horse, gets hurt good, limps and gets back on the saddle. Later that night he is doctoring himself with a little whiskey and bacon fat. Cowboy down will call an ambulance, go to the EM for x-rays, wear a back brace, go to physical therapy, do pain killers, seek council for traumatic stress. This is tiny bit more expansive.

[Larv]

Why isn’t this elephant in the room not being seen for what it truly is? Seems odd to me that more is not being made about the amalgamation of the heath insurers’ lobby with the Republican Party to collectively defeat Obama’s big initiative. The health insurers want all that money that comes along with the status quo. And the Republicans want to see Obama go down in flames. It's the perfect blend of hate and greed, and they will probably succeed.

 

But that’s capitalism for ya. What true American would want any of those pinko commie health care systems like they have up in Canuckistan?

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - Weekly Address: Myths and Morality in Health Insurance Reform http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ityPz0IML1Y

[Southtown]

Thank you for that PBS link. That was so good I watched it three times, and once with my wife. And I'm sorry for implying that you aren't contributing. My frustration comes from reading and watching all the news I can in search of details only to hear shallow characterizations of from each side to describe the arguments from the other.

 

Well, China proves your assertion wrong.

Yeah, I guess a country would need to have a closed economic system for my theory to stand a chance.

 

Yet another argument in favor of providing care to everyone so premiums are held relatively steady.

. . .

Southie... I'll be blunt. You don't want a free market health care system. To be blunt, nobody in our country would accept free market healthcare. We would never allow it, neither the religious whackjobs nor the atheist liberals. Nobody would let such a thing stand.

 

A free market healthcare system is one in which people who cannot afford to care for themselves are allowed to get sicker and die. Bodies would pile up in the streets, children would be orphaned, and our society would quickly resemble something out of the middle ages.

 

The populace in our country would NEVER for one moment allow a free market healthcare system, since such a system would allow the poor to die in large numbers, as the free market approach is one which caters to those who are privileged and can afford things.

 

Now that this has been established, it's time to wake up to the fact that free market principles do not apply to healthcare, and it's time for us as a community to come up with the most intelligent and logical alternative... All indicators suggest that most logical and intelligent alternative is a single payer system.

. . .

Now... speaking of well supported arguments, can you make any in opposition to single payer health care which are not rooted in fear mongering, slippery slopes, and other logical fallacies? If not, I strongly encourage you to concede your position and consider exploring why I (and so many others) argue in favor of a single payer approach.

I'm not arguing against care for everyone. And neither am I arguing for a purely free-market health system. I am not even arguing against expanding Medicare into a public option. I am however questioning the necessity of a single-payer system because it will neither inherently cover everyone nor keep costs down. Additional stipulations such as mandatory coverage, basic minimum benefits, rescission bans, and subsidities must be implimented in some form along side the single-payer mechanism. I say these stipulations can also be implimented along side a private heath care system/insurance industry. So it comes down to, in my opinion, not which is a better option, but how can these minor details be applied to varying degrees to make any medical system more effective? This is a quote I got from the end of that Frontline Special.

"

What I've found is that it's not all socialized medicine out there. Many countries provide universal coverage with their private insurance, private doctors, private hospitals using market ideas that might work for us. But here's the thing, these capitalist countries don't trust healthcare entirely to the free market. They all impose limits. There are three big ones. First, insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Second, everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor. Third, doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices. Can Americans accept ideas like that?

" -- T.R. Reid, Sick Around the World

[InfiniteNow]

Thank you for that PBS link. That was so good I watched it three times, and once with my wife.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It was really eye-opening for me. I learned a lot in that short hour, and I'm happy to share educational experiences with my friends.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing against care for everyone. And neither am I arguing for a purely free-market health system. I am not even arguing against expanding Medicare into a public option. I am however questioning the necessity of a single-payer system because it will neither inherently cover everyone nor keep costs down. Additional stipulations such as mandatory coverage, basic minimum benefits, rescission bans, and subsidities must be implimented in some form along side the single-payer mechanism. I say these stipulations can also be implimented along side a private heath care system/insurance industry.

I understand your point, and I agree. Regardless of our approach, we need to ensure there are stipulations to mandate coverage, basic minimum benefits, bans on rescission and discrimination for those with preexisting conditions, and maximum payout limits for patients.

 

 

 

 

This is a quote I got from the end of that Frontline Special.

"

What I've found is that it's not all socialized medicine out there. Many countries provide universal coverage with their private insurance, private doctors, private hospitals using market ideas that might work for us. But here's the thing, these capitalist countries don't trust healthcare entirely to the free market. They all impose limits. There are three big ones. First, insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Second, everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor. Third, doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices. Can Americans accept ideas like that?

" -- T.R. Reid, Sick Around the World

 

Since you liked the "Sick Around the World" special so much, you might also enjoy the follow-up they did in March of this year called "Sick Around America."

 

FRONTLINE: sick around america: watch the full program | PBS

 

 

It provides some much needed perspective which we should each hold close and keep in the fore of our thoughts while having these academic discussions. :rolleyes: