I just noticed the quote you're referencing, and I would like to make a clarification that I do not think that health is largely based on personal decisions. Would that it were - it would be easier to construct a fair system. As it is, health seems based on the luck of the draw more than anything.

(That was a general clarification, not a response to you, per se).

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

No, because you didn't ask a question.

Now, if you've got something to ask, spit it out FFS.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

no need to get nasty
again-

do the needs of the few outweigh the needs or free will of the many?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Don't know what you are fussin' with Pram about, but health care is something everyone needs. Single payer financing restricts no ones free will as to who provides it. It simply takes away that "free will" choice of whether to pay the insurance bloodsucker or the morgage and food on the table.

Sometimes, yes.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

So does decoupling insurance coverage from employment, and without introducing an oppressive governmental bureaucracy and/or tax load.

Not necessarily. If the person in question is a welfare leach to start with, the sooner they're gone the better. And not-terribly-productive workers aren't much better. And it's only a matter of time until the government figures that out, and I don't think that's a course we want to be setting for our society. -or- If the person has enough health issues in their retirement and no restraints on health care costs, it's quite possible they can eat up more than their 44 years of productivity. My ex-father-in-law bordered on this. -or- If the person's health issues are severe enough at 45, it's possible they can incur a 'productivity deficit' they'll never climb out of.


But not so much as everyone needs food. Aren't we getting our priorities mixed up by not nationalizing nutrition first?


That's true - You pay the governmental insurance bloodsucker, or else people with guns come to take you (and/or yours) away. I hardly see where that's an improvement over the current situation, tho.

And that's why I voted for you for dictator, so you could make both that general determination and the specific ones that must follow, since individuals cannot be trusted to make appropriate choices regarding medicine, charity, or medical charity. Oh wait, I didn't vote for you! I hope I didn't miss the dictator election! (And I hope there aren't any penalties for not voting, like the penalties for not buying insurance... )



The problem with our current system isn't not enough insurance, it's Too Much insurance. As private-insurance-opponents point out, there is an incentive for each payer to pay out as little as possible, and because the payers are not directly involved in the actual care exchange, the results are sometimes tragic. What the government-insurance-proponents fail to take into account is that this negative incentive and indifferent posture do not magically disappear just because one shifts from several third-party payers to one. (One does admittedly gain the advantage of standardized red tape, but this is a shorter-term advantage than that of market-based competition.)

Economically, the best method is to decouple insurance coverage from employment, reduce or eliminate prepaid healthcare disguised as health insurance (i.e. low- or no- deductible plans), and encourage individual purchases of both healthcare and catastrophic health insurance. This takes advantage of market forces towards cost efficiency and product innovation while reducing the tragedies of overwhelming medical expenses.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

So you not proud of your goverment I didn't take you as so unpatrioticSo what are you saying about mental illness and all people who a living of the state due to illness or handicap. When would you put them out of there misery and put a bullet in there head... Your views are shared with HitlerSo we should have left all people in Katrina to die... If crops are wiped out ny weather you should let people starve..Medicaid and Medicare are the most efficent health insureance in the US..Thats just crap... Are you willing to let people die because they didn't buy insurance... Are you willing to let 40 millions Americans die....[/quote]
You actually know nothing about healthcare... Nothing

The reason US healthcare is costing twice the french is preventive care and any good health professional who as looked at this area will tell you so... I have worked in the area and the figures are astounding... Preventive Care saves huge amounts of money...

The is one think I like to say to you is that your idealogically lead and you can't see reality. The reality of the situation is the present system is killing over a million Americans a year(thats conservative), your method will kill more. The system is grossly too expensive because corporate greed... Your so idealogically blind to this...

Do I smell a "disagreeing with me makes you Hitler" argument?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Hang on.. He was saying that people who are not productive to his version of society should be let die if they get sick...

What did Hitler do the the mentally ill...

No, I was saying unproductive people would eventually be treated as 'official liabilities' under Your vision of society. It's a foreseeable and not unlikely outcome as one continually moves towards a totalitarian state. In the next five years? I'd bet a salary against. Ten yrs? I'd bet a paycheck against. Five generations? Except that I obviously won't be around, I'd bet a couple paychecks for. Unfortunately for me, you're wanting to bet my descendents against.


Like the bumper sticker says - Love your country, fear your government. We almost live in a kleptocracy, except that theft and corruption are just coincidentally common - the real qualification seems to be who is the best liar.

I'm not saying that's the way things Should be - that's the way things Would be. There are much more humane and less socially disruptive ways to handle... I guess a good umbrella term would be 'the underclass'.

I'm at a loss to come up with a comparable but amusing non-sequitur. I do not consider healthcare a basic human need. Whether one does or not, food is a More basic need, and there are people who aren't getting proper nutrition. So taking your line of reason to its logical conclusion, universal healthcare should be put on the back burner until we've accomplished universal nutrition.

Is that why I keep seeing news articles about doctors that won't accept those patients? Or why I keep reading about hospitals/practices/agencies in dire financial straits because payments are often slow and/or delayed?

That's just crap... Are you saying that because I don't want Pram (or you, or whoever) to dictate my charitable contributions, I'm a wannabe murderer... Are you so dim as to actually believe 'uninsured' means 'on death's door'?


I guess we're at an impass then, since you seem to know as much about economics as I do about healthcare.

So then it sounds like we need better education promoting preventive care, and/or more insurance rating classes based on preventive care, to go along with decoupling health insurance from employment. If people paid for health insurance out of pocket and knew they could save half off by getting anual check-ups, you can bet your butt more people would get exams.


Assuming your number is correct, how will my system kill more? The most obvious answer I can see is that many people will choose to forego healthcare and/or health insurance. If that's the case, why aren't they already choosing to forego food as well? (You're still welcome to provide some other answer(s), as I won't assume I came up with the only possible response.)

I've shown how yours will kill more - Third party payers will always have an incentive to pay as little as possible. Monopolizing that incentive will eventually lead to one or more of arbitrarily restricted supply, reduction of innovation, and/or arbitrary reduction of demand (a la Hitler's execution of mental cases).

Yes, just like our roadways are littered with bodies because of cell phones. If we could get rid of corporate greed and cell phones, life would be instantly beautiful. (Fade to soft classical music and butterflies flitting between wildflowers growing on verdant hills with a 'mostly sunny' sunrise in the background.)

(Then a bird swoops down on the butterfly and is promptly blown to bits by a shotgun blast as a herd of obnoxious ATVers zoom by, crushing whatever flowers are in their path and leaving behind a clooud of exhaust.)
The system is grossly too expensive because of corruption and incompetence. Corrupt lawyers suing for no good reason. Corrupt patients who hire them. Corrupt doctors putting in false claims, whether to private or govermental payers. And yes, corrupt corporations that also put in false claims. Corrupt or incompetent payers who sometimes allow or even facilitate fraud. Corrupt or incompetent legislators who thwart meaningful reform. Corrupt or incompetent individuals who neglect to get proper preventative care. Corrupt or incompetent benefits coordinators who select plans that aren't appropriate for their employees or their company. And sometimes even corrupt or incometent companies that fail to pay or fail to pay in a timely manner. And probably some more corruption and incompetence I'm failing to list here. And the costs of all the controls needed to try to find and stop all the corruption and incompetence.

Corporations are inherently greedy - that is their job. But they are also generally fair, in that they usually live up to their contracts. So long as you know that going in, you're generally okay. And if they don't live up to their contracts, you can sue or call the cops.

Governmental programs are inherently innefficient (unless they're inhumanely efficient, like Hitler's mental health program) - that's just the nature of the beast. But they're also politically motivated, so if you're connected, you can get what you want or need. So long as you know that going in, you're generally okay. And if they don't live up to their contracts, you can... well, in this case, you can go to hell. (Or heaven, or just 'away'.)


Inflamatory rhetoric aside, you do have a point about preventative care. Even if healthcare is 'free' under socialized medicine, people still won't go without proper education (probably in the form of public service announcements) to let them know they should. A more efficient solution is proper education, catastrophic insurance that includes payment for some basic preventative care like (annual?) check-ups, charitable funding for preventative care for those who can't afford it, and market-driven healthcare. And if somebody dies an early death because they decide they'd rather have a shorter life graced by a big-screen TV than a longer one after getting that nasty growth looked at, that's their choice, not mine. Or yours.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian