Universal health care wouldn't be that bad if...

[SouthernGuy15]

It is wrong to force one person to pay for another person's health care. It is no different than an individual robbing someone else's house to pay for their doctor's visit.

 

[trispear]

No offense, but I think that's about the lamest argument there is. "Somebody might accidently pay too much?"

Then we might as well have government controls on auto repairs too. It's not fair when I break down beside the freeway and don't have a regular mechanic that I trust not to rip me off when I need quick service.

Your comparison is not a valid argument because if I break down, I can call several towing services and ask pricing first. And then, if the first mechanic gives you quote that you think is wrong or too high, you have the luxury of towing your car to another mechanic. Especially with an expensive repair.

Last year, on a Sunday, my cousin cut his leg with a chainsaw. It was a fleshwound, but his doctor's office was closed and he was scared (no tetanus shot ever) of getting gangreen or something.

He went to the only place open, the hospital, they cleaned it, x-rayed it (shrapnel), stitched it (30 stiches), and sent him on his way after a tetanus shot. It took him 4 hours there, but in reality the nurses attended him for about 20 minutes, the rest of the time was just waiting around.

The cost? He got a shock. The bill was $4000. He called and complained, but could not get a reduction in price, and the lawyer said as long as they didn't double bill there wasn't much he could do. His doctor was of the opinion that it would have cost at his office $200 + cost of X-ray ($75).

This put him under financial hardship for half a year to pay for a simple thing. He's relatively poor and uninsured.

So, yeah, I don't think overpaying is a lame excuse. This isn't like buying a big screen TV somewhere.

 

[erowe1]

Universal health care wouldn't be that bad if we all lived in a dream world where there were so such thing as scarcity.

But as long as there is scarcity, there must be a mechanism in place that determines the distribution of the item that is scarce, in this case medical coverage. The best mechanism to do that is "price", something that needs to be free to react to the impulses of supply and demand without any governmental interference in the process.

 

[Corydoras]

but his doctor's office was closed and he was scared (no tetanus shot ever) of getting gangreen or something.

He went to the only place open, the hospital

A huge reason it would have been so much cheaper at the doctor's office is precisely because the doctor's office has less overhead, since it isn't open all the time and has so much less infrastructure to support. A hospital has to stay prepared around the clock for much worse injuries than a simple deep cut, and if you go there, you are paying for its availability.

 

[erowe1]

...we weren't trillions of dollars in debt.

What do you guys think?

For an economy our size, "trillions of dollars" isn't that much debt.

 

[Corydoras]

I think I'd support an opt-in health insurance system run as a kind of public utility. I imagine a government chartered non-profit insurance company that was obligated to accept anyone who is otherwise unable to get private insurance.

That's a recipe for corporate welfare, providing an incentive for private corporations to cherry-pick the healthiest people to cover and reject the rest.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

"Socialized medicine" is a big canard used by the MSM/neocons (like gay marriage, etc.) to distract the sheeple from the real issues while they take your rights away and install a police state.

Don't make your decision based on "socialized medicine".

 

[Corydoras]

how can free markets kick in if you have cancer or a compound fracture or some other emergency and don't have the time to pick and choose the hospital?

Even if you're insured, you don't have a choice in an emergency. If your leg is torn off in an accident near Hell Hospital, that's where you're going to be taken until you are stable enough to get yourself transferred to Miracle Medical Center, even if you have great insurance.

Fact of the matter is, when you are in an emergency and are in want of a necessity, you NEVER have as wide a choice as if you had unlimited money. Your home burns down, you take shelter where you can afford it.

 

[constituent]

I think I'd support an opt-in health insurance system run as a kind of public utility. I imagine a government chartered non-profit insurance company that was obligated to accept anyone who is otherwise unable to get private insurance.

a la CPB->PBS.

exactly. compromise.

 

[Corydoras]

Can't vets already go around the VA?

Yes, and many get private insurance. For that matter, many people in the UK get private insurance precisely because they are terrified of the NHS. When people are given the opportunity to opt out, they do, in huge numbers... and that leaves the poorest people in government program... and that's who Medicaid is covering anyway. So there is no need for widespread socialized medicine.

Do I think that President Paul will succeed in ending Medicaid? No. Nor do I think he seriously wants to, for the sickest people.

The argument then becomes the cutting-off qualification point. If you want the bar to be lowered so that healthier people can be covered by government insurance, then the problem becomes: America cannot afford to pay for it.

 

[DJ RP]

I need to dig up a John Stossel piece on universal healthcare for you. I really liked his analogy that went something like this...

Imagine if you had food insurance that covered all your trips to the grocery store in a month. Who would buy hamburger when they could buy steak? The grocery stores would continually raise their prices because their customers wouldn't care.

Add to that the problems of killing innovation and efficiency...the inevitable shortage of doctors and nurses...it just isn't a good way to do things. We know this from looking at other first world countries who have universal health care already.

Thanks for this post, really great analogy that easily helped me understand EXACTLY why it's bad.

 

[trispear]

how can free markets kick in if you have cancer or a compound fracture or some other emergency and don't have the time to pick and choose the hospital?

Even if you're insured, you don't have a choice in an emergency. If your leg is torn off in an accident near Hell Hospital, that's where you're going to be taken until you are stable enough to get yourself transferred to Miracle Medical Center, even if you have great insurance.

Fact of the matter is, when you are in an emergency and are in want of a necessity, you NEVER have as wide a choice as if you had unlimited money. Your home burns down, you take shelter where you can afford it.

That's true, but I don't see how that addresses the concern about the effective local monopoly emergency hospitals have and the fact that they could charge any price.

If not regulated somehow, my electric company could hold me hostage the same way.

 

[SeanEdwards]

That's a recipe for corporate welfare, providing an incentive for private corporations to cherry-pick the healthiest people to cover and reject the rest.

What you described is what we have now. It's not possible to purchase private health insurance if you are a bad risk. The insurance companies refuse to insure you.

 

[Corydoras]

What you described is what we have now. It's not possible to purchase private health insurance if you are a bad risk. The insurance companies refuse to insure you.

If you get it through an employer, it's still private insurance and they don't turn you down.

I think it's a legitimate choice to decide to work for a company that offers health insurance specifically to get it. You are not forced to do that.

 

[SeanEdwards]

If you get it through an employer, it's still private insurance and they don't turn you down.

I think it's a legitimate choice to decide to work for a company that offers health insurance specifically to get it. You are not forced to do that.

And if you are unemployed, you get to die.

Or go bankrupt, and then qualify for medicaid/medicare.

 

[RobotJaxxon]

I think people have pointed to the current state of healthcare and concluded that the free market doesn't work, we need government to run it for us. Below is something I wrote a few days ago that is kind of a response to that notion, and provides a vision for how a truly free market system (remove government mandates!) could produce something much better.

First, it should be explained that the current state of health insurance is a misapplication of free market principals. First, it is tied to employers, an idea that is anachronistic considering most people today will change jobs 6 or more times during their career. This restricts the consumer's ability to 'speak with their wallets', which from the consumer's view looks a lot like a monopoly, a company store for health care. Second, health insurance is a middleman that inverts the natural incentives of a free market. Since the only real service an insurance company provides is to collect and spend money (sound like a government, anyone?!?), its only incentive is to collect as much money as possible and spend as little as possible. Individuals would do the leg work to find the best cost-speed-quality balance for their situation, and providers would respond to this. Plus, the more hands the money passes through between the consumer and the provider, the less efficient the market will be.

I can envision a free-market approach to health care that I call a doctor-hospital co-op. This would call on the hospital to take the role of health insurance provider. The main difference is that instead of just collecting money for a risk-pool, the doctor-hospital co-op would collect money and use it to directly fund the hospital operations. They would pay for doctors and nurses, for hospital equipment (MRI machines, CT scanners, etc). So when a consumer pays into the doctor-hospital co-op, they are guaranteed service at their hospital. The doctors can make decisions on the most equitable use of the equipment. As a co-op, the hospital would have an incentive to keep its monthly costs down (to gain more participants), to provide quality serivce and to do it quickly. For people who can't afford the monthly 'premiums', they could offer a volunteer program to help offset the costs. Donate 10 hours a week doing paperwork, cleaning rooms, etc, and get a reduction in the premiums. No Medicare or Medicaid or Welfare.

This idea may not be perfect, but it seems like a good starting point to me. Perhaps it sounds similar to a charity hospital, but the difference in marketing is important. The premise in today's politics is to have a specific vision, something people could imagine that doesn't just involve things disappearing.

 

[Corydoras]

That's true, but I don't see how that addresses the concern about the effective local monopoly emergency hospitals have and the fact that they could charge any price.

That's like saying landlords have a local monopoly.

 

[Corydoras]

Or go bankrupt, and then qualify for medicaid/medicare.

YES, the whole point of asset qualification is that the government can't afford Medicaid UNLESS you are down to that point.

So you think other people should be forced to pay for patients to hold onto their assets?

 

[SeanEdwards]

YES, the whole point of asset qualification is that the government can't afford Medicaid UNLESS you are down to that point.

So you think other people should be forced to pay for patients to hold onto their assets?

The problem is that the uninsured are charged at stupid rates. $4000 for 30 stitches and an xray, as was mentioned previously in the thread. That's not the free market.

I don't understand why you seem so gleeful about gouging and impoverishing people struggling with a health problem.

I don't understand why terrorists in guantanamo are getting better healthcare than I am.

 

[Corydoras]

I don't understand why you seem so gleeful about gouging and impoverishing people struggling with a health problem.

That's a false attribution of attitude. Some people would get really upset with you for that, but I choose to believe you are just being sloppy in your argumentation.

I needed major abdominal surgery and maintenance medications while I was uninsured, and it was my personal responsibility to spend down to the level where Medicaid would pay for some and I paid for whatever Medicaid didn't cover, which was not an insubstantial amount. That is the right thing to do, not to whine about the government forcing me to actually spend my assets for what they exist for.