 |
Spit made a specific point about for profit insurance companies making health care decisions for you.
My posting shows that under the President's plan ;for profit companies will still be making that determination in conjunction with faceless nameless bureaucrats .
President Obama has made you the person who will craft a new health care plan. What will your plan look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We already have a solution. We came up with it about 233 years ago. It's the solution that the Founders used. It's a very simple solution. It's called the free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And it's the DEMS who keep saying NO to it. They have refused for DECADES to even try a free market solution.
We're not the party of NO. We're the party that has solutions that have worked for over 2 centuries. The DEMS are saying NO to what works. THEY are the party of "NO".
"Yes We Can" is better translated as "NO More Doing Things The Way They Have Worked In The Past." Or perhaps "No More Free Choice". Or maybe "Our Way or the High Way."
Elliot
Under the false assumption that we absolutely need 100% universal health care coverage ;gun to my head...Quote:
President Obama has made you the person who will craft a new health care plan. What will your plan look like?
I would probably model something close to the Swiss system which still gives the individual wide latitude of choice .
Healthcare in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But ;as I said ,that is under the assumption that we need 100% coverage .
My other option would be for separate coverages for basic care and catastrophic care . But mostly I think that if people are truly given a wide range of options ,providers would have to compete for the patient and that would automatically reduce costs.
Spitvenom, I have explained this before, but you haven't been listening.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Yes, there is some underwriter in an office somewhere at your insurance company making decisions about your health. However, it is in his best interest to make sure you continue to live a long time so that you can continue paying your insurance premiums. That's how the insurance company makes a profit. The longer you live, the more money he (or his company) makes. Therefore, it is in his best interest to get you the medical care you need so that you continue to pay for health insurance. To put it simply, "thar's gold in them thar old people".
However, when the government is in charge they don't make money from your premiums. They make money from your taxes. The less they pay out, the better off the government is. Therefore, it is in the government's best interest for you to die. In fact, the older you get, the more they need you to die, because you are no longer contributing to the tax base and are consuming the greates amount of medical care... the older you are, the more you are a leech on the system. The less they give you in terms of services, the better off the government is in terms of profitability.
I would MUCH rather have someone who is interested in keeping me alive be the person in charge of my health decisions than someone who's best interest is in my death. I'll take the private health system any day of the week.
Follow the money, folks.
Elliot
So you believe your healthcare system is in good shape?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So by your logic the longer a person lives the more he pays taxes right? It is in the government's interest that people live longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's the idea. But, in the real world if you need a $250,000 operation, the insurance adjuster can make a quarter of a million $$$'s drop to the bottom line TODAY, by DENYING you the operation. If he's allowed to do that, you betcha he will.
How long, if EVER, will they recoup $250,000 from YOUR premiums?? Dude! You think you'll be protected because they pay attention to the bottom line. I say you won't, because they pay attention to the bottom line.
excon
You are right I don't listen to anything on here. I read a lot of stuff though. But that gets pushed out when I have something more important to remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That is your assumption on how it will work but since we don't have that system you are just assuming.
Yes. US Patients have better access to healthcare facilities than those in nationalized systems. Cancer survival rates show that the USA is far ahead of Europe and Canada for every type of cancer... we have lower mortality rates, higher cure rates, and quicker recovery times from surgery. We also have wider cancer screening. For all diseases, we have better medical outcomes than those of Europe and Canada. For heart care we have better surgical and medicinal outcomes. For elective surgery, we have quicker response, better success rates, and shorter rehab times. We are quicker at diagnosis of all diseases because we have more diagnostic equipment. We are the largest producer of new medical techniques and pharmaceuticals. And we have shorter wait-times for medical procedures.
Am I satisfied? YES!! I am 100% satisfied at all levels. What I can't understand is why anyone who has experienced both private healthcare and public healthcare WOULDN'T be satisfied with the US system as it is.
Is the US health system in good shape? Yes. It is, quite simply, the best system in the entire world. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination... after all it is run by humans. But it is much better than any other system, which is also run by humans... but those humans have no incentive to be better at their jobs than anyone else, because they get paid the same either way.
Yes, I am 100% satisfied.
Uhhhh... wrong. People who are retired no longer pay significantly into the tax system because they are no longer earning income. They have outlived their usefulness as a source of income for the government. In fact, their main source of income in most cases is Social Security... which means they are a drain on the system both because of healthcare costs AND because of Social Security. They are a net loss for the government no matter how you slice it. Even if they pay taxes, it is less than they are receiving from the government in SS and medical benefits. Old people cost the government money.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
In a private system, though, they have to continue to pay for their health insurance regardless of whether they are retired or not. They are a continuing source of income for insurance companies.
Elliot
If you're satisfied with the system then that's great for you. It doesn't seem to be the case for many though. This website is one example.
How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?
No Spitevenom, I'm not just assuming. The Netherlands government is already performing euthenasia against the wishes of patients in order to keep their medical costs down. The UK, France and Canada are regularly denying life-saving medicines and techniques on the grounds that they are "experimental" despite their proven efficacy in the USA because those medicines and techniques are too expensive. The VA system regularly denies lifesaving procedures that are de rigure in the private system on the grounds of cost. (Just look at the OP of this string for one example.)Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I'm not assuming anything. I'm observing what is going on elsewhere where universal healthcare is the norm. There's no assumption involved at all. The money thing is already in play in universal/government-run health systems, even in the USA. It WILL happen because it is ALREADY happening.
Elliot
Interestingly enough, I saw a poll last week that said that 60% of Americans do not want universal healthcare. At the same time, 60% of Americans wanted to see "fundamental change" in the US healthcare system.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Clearly whatever it is they want changed, nationalization of their healthcare system is NOT what they want. But they were never asked what kind of changes they want to see.
Usually by spending their retirement savings. That's what it's there for. But that's not the issue. Once they are in the insurance company's computers, they are an ongoing source of income. They need to be protected so they can remain a source of income.Quote:
How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?
Elliot
excon was correct in last post here.
So now we are like Europe. You don't think the US is better then those countries? You don't think the US can do it better then these countries. Hmm some American you are.
If they do that enough times, excon, people start leaving that insurance company for other choices. That's the advantage of a multi-payor system... if you don't like the service you can go elsewhere, and there is always someone else willing to give better service so they can take your money. And the company that keeps dropping patients because they aren't giving good service is going to go out of business soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But in a universal system, there is no other choice. They can give as terrible service as they desire and there's NOTHING you can do about it. You're stuck. If they refuse to give you the surgery you need, there is no other insurance company to switch to, and you are not allowed to pay privately for the procedure. That's is what "single-payor" means.
Follow the money, excon.
Do I think the US can do better than Europe? Not when we have European-style socialists in office trying to create a socialist system just like that of Europe. But you already knew that, Spit.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
You see, capitalism takes human nature, specifically greed, into consideration and focuses it toward the goal. Socialism tries to deny the existence of human nature, and the result is that the system fails because both greed and laziness come into play.
Nationalized healthcare is a case of socialism ignoring human nature... the greed factor that will cause the government to limit the care it gives and the laziness that causes mediocrity in the healthcare system. PRIVATE healthcare understands both greed and laziness, and so uses greed as an incentive for success and a counterforce against laziness. This is pure Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations stuff. And it has been proven true over and over again. It's what killed the Soviet Union.
So now we have a government that is attempting to re-try a failed experiment that has no chance of succeeding because human nature precludes the possibility of its success. It has failed here where it has been tried (the VA system, the auto industry's labor unions, public education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,) it has failed in Europe, and it will fail on a much grander scale if we are forced into government-run single-payor healthcare. It is a system based on a utopian view of the world that is completely at odds with human nature and the real world we live in. Humans can't live in utopia because we're humans, not angels.
Elliot
No he wasn't. Read my follow-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That's a shame that you don't believe American's can get this done. We as a country are better then that.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 AM. |