Am I incorrect in my assumptions about health care?

[Starks]

Universal health care: Everyone is insured, quality of govt-run health care will be satisfactory but not amazing, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option so long as they find ways to stay in business

Free market health care: More affordable but not everyone can or will be insured, quality should be comparable if not better than the HMOs, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option but will be severely at a disincentive due to increased competition

 

[SWATH]

Your looking too far into it

Universal health care: violation of private property and the philosophy of liberty

Free market health care: no such violations

Seive through this filter when analyzing an issue:

1. Does it violate the Constitution? If no move on to #2, if yes reject it.

2. Does it increase or decrease liberty? If increase move on to #3, if decrease reject it.

3. Will the end result be beneficial or detrimental to the People? If beneficial accept it, if detrimental reject it. (this is the question you were asking first, you skipped steps 1 and 2)

BTW, universal health care fails all three tests.

 

[Starks]

Full disclosure: While, I am sympathetic to the goals of universal health care and believe it to be the superior choice in certain respects, I don't think now is the right time since we can't afford it.

 

[Eponym_mi]

Basically.

One other benefit to free market...it also provides the option for individuals to not buy insurance at all and instead rely on their own savings. This may be preferable for some people, especially if they are prudent with their finances and lifestyle choices.

 

[Starks]

Your looking too far into it

Universal health care: violation of private property and the philosophy of liberty

Free market health care: no such violations

I would've appreciated it if you had addressed my assumptions.

 

[qednick]

Full disclosure: While, I am sympathetic to the goals of universal health care and believe it to be the superior choice in certain respects, I don't think now is the right time since we can't afford it.

You bet ya! In the UK where they've had universal healthcare for some time now, quality of care has gone way down, waiting list have grown exponentially and, most recently, to cut costs, the government is toying with the idea of refusing treatment to those who smoke, drink or are considered overweight - even if they paid the extortionate taxes all their lives. Go figure!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MSIVHFTHERHRJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml

 

[itsnobody]

Universal Healthcare: Government run healthcare, if the government messes up well then it's a waste of taxpayer money, long waiting lists, causes people to go overseas, even for emergencies you may have to wait 17 weeks

Free Market Healthcare: lower prices, much more affordable, eventually all who want healthcare will easily get it, no long waiting lists

 

[Starks]

What would allow a free market system to adopt negligible prices and be available to the 17 million (right #?) uninsured Americans?

 

[aravoth]

Universal health care: Everyone is insured, quality of govt-run health care will be satisfactory but not amazing, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option so long as they find ways to stay in business

Free market health care: More affordable but not everyone can or will be insured, quality should be comparable if not better than the HMOs, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option but will be severely at a disincentive due to increased competition

I work for an HMO

It's complete shit, and I fully expect universal Healthcare will be exactly the same, but much much worse.

Most Providers in my Hospital have an average of 2800 patients, Thats 2,800 people, per doctor. And 90% of the boomers haven't retired yet. That number will climb, and it it will climb drastically. Especially under a nationalized healthcare system. I can't imagine how many people will just "go to the doctor" becuase it's free, just to see if they can have 4 physicals a year. It's free right? Might as well Use it.

 

[Starks]

Would you object to allowing small and large health care companies competing with a govt-run system?

 

[JordanL]

The biggest difference is that a free market system encourages preventative care, because treatment is always more expensive than prevention.

A universal system encourages treatment, because prevention is considered "wasteful" spending because there is no cause for the spending, only prevention of cause. (Beaurocracies and taxes rarely, if ever, get sent to prevent a cause... government is reactionary in almost all things.)

 

[Matt]

Universal health care: Everyone is insured, quality of govt-run health care will be satisfactory but not amazing, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option so long as they find ways to stay in business

Not necessarily, Edward's plan has yearly doctors visits and mandatory treatment for everybody. Basically you'd be forced to take whatever crappy care some bureaucrat decides you need and you'd have no say in the matter. I imagine with a little lobbying from the pharmaceutical industrial complex they'd crack down on private clinics and alternative medicine to keep people dependent on the system. He also wants to centralize all medical records into a massive database. It's a pretty unsettling scenario.

 

[dshields]

Would you object to allowing small and large health care companies competing with a govt-run system?

I would object to both. There should be more, smaller health care insurance companies because this would allow more competition. Additionally, doctors should encourage self pay. Several of my friends that are doctors actually ask for less cash from self-payers than most insurance companies ask in co-pays simply because it requires less staff/overhead to take cash.

Ultimately, you need to allow the market to do what its going to do. Anything else would be subsidizing it and essentially stealing money from Peter to pay Paul.

Dave

 

[angelatc]

Full disclosure: While, I am sympathetic to the goals of universal health care and believe it to be the superior choice in certain respects, I don't think now is the right time since we can't afford it.

You can never afford it. It unsustainable. Anything other than a free market solution will end up too expensive, which will in turn be "solved" by price controls, which will in turn create shortages.

Do you really want Congress voting on how long you get to live?

 

[jeremycobert]

look at how well our Government universal retirement plan (ssa) has worked out. nuff said ?

 

[Johncjackson]

I just read in my local paper ( in Ohio) that a local doctor was running for State House with the endorsement of my state GOP. As a doctor he is "concerned about the health care issue and wants a real solution."

I thought maybe he had some real solutions. His solution?

" We need universal healthcare."

UGG. Thanks GOP.

 

[Created4]

What would allow a free market system to adopt negligible prices and be available to the 17 million (right #?) uninsured Americans?

What do you mean by "negligible"?

I am uninsured, by choice, and I have a family of 5. On average we need a trip to the emergency room (the only medical services we use) less than once a year. We eat healthy organic food, and allow the body to naturally recover when sick, rather than consume pharmaceuticals. We are the kind of family that health insurance companies would love to insure. So why should I give my income to them?? I keep it, and pay for those emergency situations when we really need urgent care out of my own pocket at FAR LESS than what I would be paying in health insurance premiums. I don't buy into the health insurance FEAR tactics that I cannot live without insurance. We have done it for years, and I raised my family this way.

Insurance companies are the problem. Stop supporting them and allow health care to be regulated by market forces, and it will be affordable to all, just like food, clothing, and shelter. If we want the government to supply health care, why not other things necessary to live like food, clothing and shelter? Communism has already been tested around the world, and it doesn't work. It results in tyranny.

 

[flannerywannabe]

My understanding is this:

Universal or government-controlled health care: everyone is insured, but tax costs for the insurance are astronomical, and level of care is mediocre, with long waiting lists for even the most simple procedures.

Free-market health care: only those who can afford insurance are insured, but several claims float around about how (a) insurance will be less expensive because of competition, (b) healthcare itself will be less expensive because of competition and so the need for insurance will be less critical, and (c) those who can't afford insurance will be better cared for by individuals and society, who have the capacity to care about them as persons and individuals, than by the State, which as a State can only care about them as cogs in the machine of labor or as potential voters.

I hope and want to believe that these optimistic claims are true, which is why I tentatively support free-market health care. But I have questions, such as: What's to prevent other economic factors, outside the realm of health care, from driving up the cost even of free-market health care? Or: What's to say that people who have more to spend because of decreased insurance costs WILL choose to use it to help others? And if they don't, are those others just screwed? Or: Why not just take these things out of the hands of federal government, but allow for aid programs or fpr some kind of vouchers at the state and local level, if folks at those levels choose to have them? Would there be anything the matter with that in an otherwise free market?

I'm not naive enough to believe that humanity will ever eliminate the problem of suffering -- and even if we could, it certainly wouldn't be the government that would do it! I guess my question is: are these the only two viable options? And how can we be sure that the free-market system will work as well in reality as it does on paper?

 

[SlapItHigh]

Not necessarily, Edward's plan has yearly doctors visits and mandatory treatment for everybody. Basically you'd be forced to take whatever crappy care some bureaucrat decides you need and you'd have no say in the matter. I imagine with a little lobbying from the pharmaceutical industrial complex they'd crack down on private clinics and alternative medicine to keep people dependent on the system. He also wants to centralize all medical records into a massive database. It's a pretty unsettling scenario.

Yeah Edwards is going on the incorrect assumption that mandatory drs visits will actual prevent anything. I feel safer not taking my kids to the drs under my universal government (military) healthcare. Western medicine is not the answer to preventing illness for most of us. IMO, things would get even worse and illness/cancer would rise under Edwards mandatory preventative care plan.

 

[SlapItHigh]

Universal health care: Everyone is insured, quality of govt-run health care will be satisfactory but not amazing, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option so long as they find ways to stay in business

No, I think quality of government run health care would be unsatisfactory. I say that because I already have government run health care through the military and it scores a big fat F. I pay out of pocket 100% for all of my healthcare and my children's because the care is so poor through the government. I don't see those options remaining after universal health care takes effect.

Free market health care: More affordable but not everyone can or will be insured, quality should be comparable if not better than the HMOs, the private HMO-based health care we currently have will remain as an option but will be severely at a disincentive due to increased competition

With the free market, the vast majority of people will be able to afford and those that can't afford it will be covered with private charities. There will always be some who won't get help. That is inevitable no matter what.