Support for national health insurance

[velomoto]

"altruism"

 

I had to actually go and look that word up!

Honestly - did you really know what a "Randroid" was??? If so I'm impressed! But even more impressed with the correct use of BOTH altruism and Randroid in the same post!

[Whip]

"altruism"

 

I had to actually go and look that word up!

Honestly - did you really know what a "Randroid" was??? If so I'm impressed! But even more impressed with the correct use of BOTH altruism and Randroid in the same post!

 

 

John Gault lives in Torrey.........

 

[Matts_12GS]

Matt

I don't think 20 million is an overstated figure. We have an estimated 6 to 7 million here in the state of California. Other states like N.C., S.C., and Georgia have seen their illegal populations skyrocket in the past 10-15 years straining all social services. I know because I lived in N.C. for 12 years.

 

Thanks Keith.

 

I recently read the book Mexifornia by Victor Davis Hanson. Pretty startling picture even to someone in FL. This entire issue (healthcare) and it's contributors (corrupt legal system, parasitic trial lawyers, illegal immigration, poor education, ad nauseum) are going to be a difficult one to fix. Unfortunately there are too many focused on treating merely symptoms instead of finding the cause(s) of our societal malaise.

[Ken H.]

"give a hungry man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish feed him for a life time!"

 

Are you suggesting free, universal medical school?

Hee hee.

 

"Heal thyself fool!"

 

Reminds me of an old SNL skit where Chris Farley is sitting in a bar thumping on his own chest giving himself CPR. A true icon for our, 'you're on you own society.'

[Ken H.]

Why is it that everytime we discuss topics concerned with the well being of others, one side of the debate insists upon taking a tack nearly identical to those of the very worst Dickensonian characters?

 

Jerry, could it be that those people are simply tiring of finding someone else's hand in their pockets all the time?

Could it be that people are tired of people worrying more about what's in their pockets than thet are about people?

[Ken H.]

"altruism"

 

I had to actually go and look that word up!

Honestly - did you really know what a "Randroid" was??? If so I'm impressed! But even more impressed with the correct use of BOTH altruism and Randroid in the same post!

Yeah, but I need to go back sometime and look at the whole Objectivism thing again sometime. I can recall trying to get into it decades ago and more or less getting lost. Oh well, something to do in my wheelchair someday...

[Bheckel169]

Ever heard of charity? We're the most giving nation on earth and within our own country millions are supported through our charitable donations. I would suggest we're not so hard hearted as you might allude to. We simply don't think that the socialistic tendencies of those that feel entitled should be humored.

[Whip]

"give a hungry man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish feed him for a life time!"

 

Are you suggesting free, universal medical school?

Hee hee.

 

"Heal thyself fool!"

 

Reminds me of an old SNL skit where Chris Farley is sitting in a bar thumping on his own chest giving himself CPR. A true icon for our, 'you're on you own society.'

 

 

 

 

 

...instead of Tech Days we could have Med Days......where Doc47 could show us how to operate on each other.

 

Bring your own anesthetic(BYOA)

 

 

[Whip]

"altruism"

 

I had to actually go and look that word up!

Honestly - did you really know what a "Randroid" was??? If so I'm impressed! But even more impressed with the correct use of BOTH altruism and Randroid in the same post!

Yeah, but I need to go back sometime and look at the whole Objectivism thing again sometime. I can recall trying to get into it decades ago and more or less getting lost. Oh well, something to do in my wheelchair someday...

 

 

You won't like it.

 

[Bheckel169]

As a follow up to that, in 2005, over $260 billion dollars was donated to various charities here in the U.S. That's a capital B as in Billions! It's clear there are many who feel the government should be the provider of our hungry, our disenfranchised and our sick. There are others that take responsibility for them and provide the necessary help in other ways outside of the gov't. To suggest that those who don't want the government involved, are somehow inhumane and don't care is misdirected and obviously an inaccurate characterization.

[Matts_12GS]

Could it be that people are tired of people worrying more about what's in their pockets than thet are about people?

 

Maybe if the gubmint would quit worrying about what's in my pocket I'd have more time to worry about other people outside my family. Until then, it's going to be a struggle of figuring out who deserves our assistance and who is just scamming the system to remain on the dole.

[keithb]

+1. Excellent point Bruce.

[Dave McReynolds]

As a follow up to that, in 2005, over $260 billion dollars was donated to various charities here in the U.S. That's a capital B as in Billions! It's clear there are many who feel the government should be the provider of our hungry, our disenfranchised and our sick. There are others that take responsibility for them and provide the necessary help in other ways outside of the gov't. To suggest that those who don't want the government involved, are somehow inhumane and don't care is misdirected and obviously an inaccurate characterization.

 

I think it's great that so many people give so much to charities, and don't want to say a single discouraging word about that.

 

....It just doesn't have much to do with the subject we're discussing.

 

A breakdown of charitable giving in 2005 shows that churches received 33%, educational institutions received 14%, disaster relief received 8% and civic and art organizations received 5%. That leaves 40% going to all other causes, ranging from the Boy Scouts, to the ASPCA, to the Bill Gates Foundation, to various foreign relief funds, and to the relief of our hungry, our disenfranchised and our sick.

 

It doesn't, by the way, trickle down to someone who is not in poverty but may be uninsurable and has costly and ongoing medical needs.

 

My statistics run out at this point, but if we take a wild guess that half of the remaining amount goes to no-doubt worthwhile causes other than the relief of our hungry, our disenfranchised and our sick, that leaves 20% of your number for that purpose. Of which, about half or more is consumed in the administration of the programs, which leaves 10% of $260 billion, or $26 billion for that purpose; still a considerable number.

 

There are about 40 million people in the US living at or below the poverty line, which averages out, then, to about $650 each in 2005 to provide for their hunger, disenfranchisement and sickness through charitable giving.

 

I spent more than that on a single tooth last year.

[smiller]

While I take offense at being called trollish, I will admit to the error of my ways using the 20 million number. I was merely quoting what one of the media's leading men on one of his numbers ( Lou dobbs ) ( AZ Republic ) so...

You're quoting Lou Dobbs on immigration? You might as well ask the Pope his religious preference...

[Matts_12GS]

While I take offense at being called trollish, I will admit to the error of my ways using the 20 million number. I was merely quoting what one of the media's leading men on one of his numbers ( Lou dobbs ) ( AZ Republic ) so...

You're quoting Lou Dobbs on immigration? You might as well ask the Pope his religious preference...

 

Well, everything to support a purpose...

 

For the record, I like Victor Davis Hanson's work too.

[Shaman97]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"give a hungry man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish feed him for a life time!"

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Are you suggesting free, universal medical school?

 

I don't read it like that. Free hooks, perhaps.

[Pilgrim]

I don't think there is anywhere that the government works more effectively and economically than the private sector.

 

That's a nice Reaganesque thought, but having worked in both the private sector and the government, I can tell you that the private sector can be every bit as ineffective and uneconomical as the government.

 

The idea that things would be fine if we just removed all government regulation and let the market sort it out is similarly an appealing fantasy, but not connected to reality. We have regulation of the insurance industry because we've found that without it, crooks and fraudsters steal their customers' money. Every day we hear new tales of corporate financial malfeasance and theft, and you think those people are qualified to hold onto our health care accounts without oversight? I should feel safe knowing my Health Savings Account is with Bear Stearns???

 

Eebie, I don't know if you misinterpreted my statement, or overstated it to yourself, or if you just thought it was a good springboard to make a separate point. For clarity's sake, let me say that government oversight is necessary in some narrow areas.

 

The private sector is capable of magnificent screw-ups, to be sure, but far less often than government. There are any number of reasons for that, but chief among them is that when a private company screws up it pays a price, perhaps including even going out of business. That is a salutory lesson to other such companies not to go there (wherever it was); call it corporate natural selection. I note that the worst surviving offenders are those that deal most closely with the government, such as banks and defense contractors.

 

Government, on the other hand, is apparently incapable of even learning from its mistakes, much less paying a price or going out of business - it just goes on forever. Even when the lessons of error are clear and it tries to "fix" things it usually makes them worse. Right off hand, I can think of no place where the government actually fixed something it broke.

 

Yes, it is necessary that government do some oversight, there needs to be some sort of referee in the game even if he's nearsighted and deaf. But the natural tendency of government is to become more and more officious and overbearing. It must be pruned back from time to time.

 

Adam Smith was right.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

We would never consider say, police protection beig a for-profit enterprise. Have to buy "protection insurance." (Mafia jokes aside.) Having to pay a co-pay when you call 911. Having a deductible for your yearly use of the police forces. We just naturally accept police protection as necessary for our wellbeing and something we are willing to pay taxes for. It's, (gasp!) socialized crime protection.

 

I am compelled to point out that the police are under no obligation to provide individualized protection to anyone - the Supreme Court said so. Response times in many areas make this clear, and I'm not blaming the cops for that; the blame (if blame need be assigned) lies with the taxpayer. He is getting the protection he is willing to pay for.

 

Thus, the explosion of private security outfits. And concealed weapon permits (let's make this a gun thread! )

 

Pilgrim

[Whip]

Even though I said I was done with this......I have one more comment

 

 

IMHO...........

 

The problem as I see it with healthcare is that it is not based on true capitalistic principals. If it were I think it would be cheaper and much more efficient.

 

 

 

The person receiving the care is not the person payin the bill. Therefore the person supplyin the service doesn't care enough about keepin your bidness. Only collecting from the person that is payin your bill. Your often not givin the opportunity to demand better service, "or I'll go somewhere else with my bidness".

 

 

The Free Market would sort this out better than the government and third parties.

 

 

 

 

Whip

[DavidEBSmith]

Your often not givin the opportunity to demand better service, "or I'll go somewhere else with my bidness".

 

The Free Market would sort this out better than the government and third parties

 

It's nonsensical to talk about the free market and health care in the same breath. If you're having a heart attack, you don't price shop. If you learn you have cancer, you want to find a doctor who can cure it, not the one who has the best customer service. Have you ever heard anybody say, "well, I need my gall bladder taken out, and Dr. X will do it for $4K and sew me up, and Dr. Y will just use a Swingline stapler but he'll do it for $1K cheaper so I'll go with the cheaper job ..."

 

A majority of people in this country want price considerations to be removed from the health care decision-making process. Just like people decided long ago that they want price considerations to be removed from the fire-fighting decision-making process (hence the move from private fire companies to government fire departments). Just like people decided they want price considerations to be removed from the starving-to-death decision-making process (hence we have welfare and unemployment and AFDC so we don't have to stumble over bloated corpses of children in the streets anymore).

 

People don't want the cost-effective cancer treatment, they want the effective cancer treatment. The only way to ensure that everybody has access to the effective treatment is with some sort of universal coverage. Most people don't care if it's socialism or if it offends free market ideas, they want to be treated if they get sick.

 

Those of you arguing for free market health care are fighting a battle that's already been lost in the minds of most Americans.

[keithb]

EXACTLY WHIP. 30-40 years ago when you went to the doctor your parents either paid cash or cut the doctor a check. There was none of this 3rd party payer b.s. involved. Seemed to work pretty well as I recall. The FREE MARKET IS THE GREAT EQUALIZER and it would work if politicians and government would just get the heck out of the way and let the market work.

[Whip]

Those of you arguing for free market health care are fighting a battle that's already been lost in the minds of most Americans.

 

 

 

That's the problem..........I knew we could find some common ground.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

Have you ever heard anybody say, "well, I need my gall bladder taken out, and Dr. X will do it for $4K and sew me up, and Dr. Y will just use a Swingline stapler but he'll do it for $1K cheaper so I'll go with the cheaper job ..."

 

Yes. That's how it works for stuff that isn't covered under our insurance like laser eye surgery. Decisions are made based on recommendations, reputation, cost, etc. Since people have a wide range of choices there's incentive for doctors to do something to gain a competitive edge. Maybe that's lower price, maybe it's some sort of a guarantee, "free" check-up appointments, etc.

 

The only way to ensure that everybody has access to the effective treatment is with some sort of universal coverage.

 

No...that ensures that everyone has access to the same treatment. It may or may not be effective.

[steve.foote]

Even though I said I was done with this......I have one more comment

 

 

IMHO...........

 

The problem as I see it with healthcare is that it is not based on true capitalistic principals. If it were I think it would be cheaper and much more efficient.

 

 

 

The person receiving the care is not the person payin the bill. Therefore the person supplyin the service doesn't care enough about keepin your bidness. Only collecting from the person that is payin your bill. Your often not givin the opportunity to demand better service, "or I'll go somewhere else with my bidness".

 

 

The Free Market would sort this out better than the government and third parties.

 

 

 

 

Whip

 

[swack] Let the big dog eat! All true.

[steve.foote]

Your often not givin the opportunity to demand better service, "or I'll go somewhere else with my bidness".

 

The Free Market would sort this out better than the government and third parties

 

It's nonsensical to talk about the free market and health care in the same breath. If you're having a heart attack, you don't price shop. If you learn you have cancer, you want to find a doctor who can cure it, not the one who has the best customer service. Have you ever heard anybody say, "well, I need my gall bladder taken out, and Dr. X will do it for $4K and sew me up, and Dr. Y will just use a Swingline stapler but he'll do it for $1K cheaper so I'll go with the cheaper job ..."

 

A majority of people in this country want price considerations to be removed from the health care decision-making process. Just like people decided long ago that they want price considerations to be removed from the fire-fighting decision-making process (hence the move from private fire companies to government fire departments). Just like people decided they want price considerations to be removed from the starving-to-death decision-making process (hence we have welfare and unemployment and AFDC so we don't have to stumble over bloated corpses of children in the streets anymore).

 

People don't want the cost-effective cancer treatment, they want the effective cancer treatment. The only way to ensure that everybody has access to the effective treatment is with some sort of universal coverage. Most people don't care if it's socialism or if it offends free market ideas, they want to be treated if they get sick.

 

Those of you arguing for free market health care are fighting a battle that's already been lost in the minds of most Americans.

 

[whiff] Complete miss.

[steve.foote]

Have you ever heard anybody say, "well, I need my gall bladder taken out, and Dr. X will do it for $4K and sew me up, and Dr. Y will just use a Swingline stapler but he'll do it for $1K cheaper so I'll go with the cheaper job ..."

 

Yes. That's how it works for stuff that isn't covered under our insurance like laser eye surgery. Decisions are made based on recommendations, reputation, cost, etc. Since people have a wide range of choices there's incentive for doctors to do something to gain a competitive edge. Maybe that's lower price, maybe it's some sort of a guarantee, "free" check-up appointments, etc.

 

The only way to ensure that everybody has access to the effective treatment is with some sort of universal coverage.

 

No...that ensures that everyone has access to the same treatment. It may or may not be effective.

 

[ping] Shot straight down the fairway, resting at 275 yard marker.

[Shaman97]

The only way to ensure that everybody has access to the effective treatment is with some sort of universal coverage.

 

No...that ensures that everyone has access to the same treatment. It may or may not be effective.

 

I see that as the way it is now. If I'm insured with say Blue Cross, they will only cover a certain course of treatment, and only to a certain percentage of cost. It may not be the right course to take. In that event, I have the choice to go to another doctor (at my expense) to see if the method the new doctor recommends will work. But then it's at my expense.

What would be removed with Universal coverage is that in the event of a catastrophic illness, I wouldn't be threatened with financial ruin. It's still all about the money. If you want additional care, and you have the $$, you can get it.

One problem I do see with Universal coverage is analogous to the public school system. The good schools tend to be in the economically well-off areas. The reverse is also true. Would Universal coverage mean the better (or even competent) doctors are in the inner city? I think not. But, they're not there now, either.

[chrisolson]

Even though I said I was done with this......I have one more comment

IMHO...........

The problem as I see it with healthcare is that it is not based on true capitalistic principals. If it were I think it would be cheaper and much more efficient.

 

The person receiving the care is not the person payin the bill. Therefore the person supplyin the service doesn't care enough about keepin your bidness. Only collecting from the person that is payin your bill. Your often not givin the opportunity to demand better service, "or I'll go somewhere else with my bidness".

The Free Market would sort this out better than the government and third parties.

 

Whip

[swack] Let the big dog eat! All true.

 

 

 

Nope ... he had it right way back here ...

 

 

 

The real problem with health insurance is that the people that don't need it don't want to pay for it. The people that do need it either can't get it or can't afford it.

 

The only way to make Steve's system work is the same way that car insurance works. Everyone must get it to keep the average costs down. I hate government forcin me to do anything, but it may be the only way this will work.

 

You can't drive your car legally on the road without insurance........so ......................maybe you can't get a drivers license without health insurance....or.......???????????????????????

 

 

There has to be away.

 

 

Whip

[Whip]

Even though I said I was done with this......I have one more comment

IMHO...........

The problem as I see it with healthcare is that it is not based on true capitalistic principals. If it were I think it would be cheaper and much more efficient.

 

The person receiving the care is not the person payin the bill. Therefore the person supplyin the service doesn't care enough about keepin your bidness. Only collecting from the person that is payin your bill. Your often not givin the opportunity to demand better service, "or I'll go somewhere else with my bidness".

The Free Market would sort this out better than the government and third parties.

 

Whip

[swack] Let the big dog eat! All true.

 

 

 

Nope ... he had it right way back here ...

 

 

 

The real problem with health insurance is that the people that don't need it don't want to pay for it. The people that do need it either can't get it or can't afford it.

 

The only way to make Steve's system work is the same way that car insurance works. Everyone must get it to keep the average costs down. I hate government forcin me to do anything, but it may be the only way this will work.

 

You can't drive your car legally on the road without insurance........so ......................maybe you can't get a drivers license without health insurance....or.......???????????????????????

 

 

There has to be away.

 

 

Whip

 

 

 

Can't I be right twice in 2008????????????????????????

 

Buy your own insurance and see any Doc you want.......easy.

 

 

[Bheckel169]

I'll agree to your statistics Dave, If you'll agree to mine which is to say there is statistical evidence that reporting periods fudge the number of uninsured. I've seen reports suggesting the uninsured is as low as 1/6th that number (45 million +-). It's all in the statistics. And, even your breakdown invites some scrutiny. The church may be a major recipient of our largese but how much of that filters down to a number of worthwhile beneficiaries within the charitable chain, including healthcare assistance at some level?

[ghaverkamp]

Have you ever heard anybody say, "well, I need my gall bladder taken out, and Dr. X will do it for $4K and sew me up, and Dr. Y will just use a Swingline stapler but he'll do it for $1K cheaper so I'll go with the cheaper job ..."

 

Yes. That's how it works for stuff that isn't covered under our insurance like laser eye surgery. Decisions are made based on recommendations, reputation, cost, etc. Since people have a wide range of choices there's incentive for doctors to do something to gain a competitive edge. Maybe that's lower price, maybe it's some sort of a guarantee, "free" check-up appointments, etc.

 

Actually, that's not how it works with "stuff" that isn't covered. It's not how it works, because the practice of medicine is not a free market. It's a highly regulated market, the barriers of entry into the market are high, and the number of entrants is constrained. In order to remain in the market, those who have overcome the entry barriers must perform to at least a minimum standard in order to remain in the market.

 

A free market might well lead to affordable, widely available medical care. However, the current system is not a free market. Choices are constrained. Participants are constrained. Procedures are constrained.

[Bheckel169]

Ok, I'm done. This was good stuff and actually I went on a little bit of a tangent myself. Here's my final thought.

For those people who can afford health insurance, we pool our money into a large insured group and let a private contractor negotiate through bid the best coverage for our group (not necessarily the low bidder ). That way we'll keep the system competitive and healthy.

For those under an identified threshold who can not afford health insurance, we pay for it (we taxpayers). In exchange for this entitlement, we ask that the uninsured who are now covered provide community service in exchange for this benefit. We solve two problems. We take care of the uninsured and we reduce the costs to communities for services that heretofore were expenditures paid by the taxpayers. I can't imagine anyone receiving these benefits arguing about putting in some community service to receive such a wonderful entitlement, can you?

[steve.foote]

For those under an identified threshold who can not afford health insurance, we pay for it (we taxpayers). In exchange for this entitlement, we ask that the uninsured who are now covered provide community service in exchange for this benefit. We solve two problems. We take care of the uninsured and we reduce the costs to communities for services that heretofore were expenditures paid by the taxpayers. I can't imagine anyone receiving these benefits arguing about putting in some community service to receive such a wonderful entitlement, can you?

 

[hole in one] Nice. That's sure to raise some eyebrows.

[smiller]

Man, the longer you work at it the better the ideas you guys come up with.

[russell_bynum]

Have you ever heard anybody say, "well, I need my gall bladder taken out, and Dr. X will do it for $4K and sew me up, and Dr. Y will just use a Swingline stapler but he'll do it for $1K cheaper so I'll go with the cheaper job ..."

 

Yes. That's how it works for stuff that isn't covered under our insurance like laser eye surgery. Decisions are made based on recommendations, reputation, cost, etc. Since people have a wide range of choices there's incentive for doctors to do something to gain a competitive edge. Maybe that's lower price, maybe it's some sort of a guarantee, "free" check-up appointments, etc.

 

Actually, that's not how it works with "stuff" that isn't covered. It's not how it works, because the practice of medicine is not a free market. It's a highly regulated market, the barriers of entry into the market are high, and the number of entrants is constrained. In order to remain in the market, those who have overcome the entry barriers must perform to at least a minimum standard in order to remain in the market.

 

A free market might well lead to affordable, widely available medical care. However, the current system is not a free market. Choices are constrained. Participants are constrained. Procedures are constrained.

 

For sure. My example wasn't totally unrestricted free market, but my point that there are multiple choices and doctors have to figure out how to win your business...and that leads to the consumer getting a "better deal" is still true.

 

Eebie asked if people ever "shop" for doctors/medical services and the answer is Yes.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

Ok, I'm done. This was good stuff and actually I went on a little bit of a tangent myself. Here's my final thought.

For those people who can afford health insurance........

 

I can see where there might definately be some significant hitches with that plan (and no matter what the plan, there always will be more than a few), but in the broad strokes of it, it sounds good to me. At least here is a plan offered which might be able to cover everyone, and that's a good beginning.

 

I'll leave it to better minds to find the real pitfalls, deal breakers and advantages

[ghaverkamp]

For sure. My example wasn't totally unrestricted free market, but my point that there are multiple choices and doctors have to figure out how to win your business...and that leads to the consumer getting a "better deal" is still true.

 

Eebie asked if people ever "shop" for doctors/medical services and the answer is Yes.

 

If there are multiple Ferrari dealers, I can shop for a cheaper Ferrari. It still doesn't mean that there will be a dealer who will sell me one in my price range. Fortunately, there are other vendors of cars out there I can buy from.

 

But if I want a doctor, that doctor has to have achieved a minimum level of education, has to meet minimum licensing requirements, has to work within certain legal parameters, and for the most part, is going to be legally liable to provide a reasonable level of care (even if you were to contract with him and promise that he wouldn't be liable for screwing up.) In the specific example Eebie used, for instance, there is no extant U.S. market in which a doctor could choose to use a Swingline to stitch you up, regardless of how much he cut the price. Such a doctor would very quickly lose his license.

 

In other words, there is a externally created floor. Anyone who suggests the current market is anything resembling a free market doesn't know what a free market is.

[Paul Mihalka]

I tried to stay away, but I have to make a comment. In a unrestricted free market the provider/seller charges what the market will bear. In health care, the "customer" would have a hard time to decide at what point the price is too high and he won't "buy". It may be to the point of personal bancruptcy just to get cured. Advantage provider.

[russell_bynum]

For sure. My example wasn't totally unrestricted free market, but my point that there are multiple choices and doctors have to figure out how to win your business...and that leads to the consumer getting a "better deal" is still true.

 

Eebie asked if people ever "shop" for doctors/medical services and the answer is Yes.

 

If there are multiple Ferrari dealers, I can shop for a cheaper Ferrari. It still doesn't mean that there will be a dealer who will sell me one in my price range. Fortunately, there are other vendors of cars out there I can buy from.

 

But if I want a doctor, that doctor has to have achieved a minimum level of education, has to meet minimum licensing requirements, has to work within certain legal parameters, and for the most part, is going to be legally liable to provide a reasonable level of care (even if you were to contract with him and promise that he wouldn't be liable for screwing up.) In the specific example Eebie used, for instance, there is no extant U.S. market in which a doctor could choose to use a Swingline to stitch you up, regardless of how much he cut the price. Such a doctor would very quickly lose his license.

 

In other words, there is a externally created floor. Anyone who suggests the current market is anything resembling a free market doesn't know what a free market is.

 

I saw the "Swingline" example as a gross exaggeration. A more reasonable example: The surgery that I had on my shoulder was done "open" (i.e. they sliced a big gash in my shoulder, did the work, then stapled it all back together. When Ben Spies needs shoulder surgery, he goes to the guy who's going to do it with the very latest and greatest tools and training since that generally means they'll do the job with the intent of minimizing recovery time. What my doctor did worked and probably cost less, but there was a longer recovery time. Since I can do without my the use of my right shoulder for 6 weeks and not be in any danger of not being able to do my job and put food on the table, that's an acceptable compromise.

[russell_bynum]

I tried to stay away, but I have to make a comment. In a unrestricted free market the provider/seller charges what the market will bear. In health care, the "customer" would have a hard time to decide at what point the price is too high and he won't "buy". It may be to the point of personal bancruptcy just to get cured. Advantage provider.

 

Yep...but what about what we see now...where doctors jack up their rates because you're going through your insurance company?

 

I have a vision plan at work that covers one eye exam per year, plus some amount of money to be used for one pair of lenses per year and one pair of frames every other year. I must use one of their approved doctors for that "benefit".

 

It actually costs me less to go to Lenscrafters and pay out of pocket for an exam and new glasses than when I use my insurance and go to their approved place. The eye exam is 100% covered, so the difference is in the frames and lenses. Actually...the last time I went to Lenscrafters, I got an exam and TWO pairs of glasses, and that was still cheaper than when I used my insurance and got one pair of glasses.

[chrisolson]

I tried to stay away, but I have to make a comment. In a unrestricted free market the provider/seller charges what the market will bear. In health care, the "customer" would have a hard time to decide at what point the price is too high and he won't "buy". It may be to the point of personal bancruptcy just to get cured. Advantage provider.

 

Yep...but what about what we see now...where doctors jack up their rates because you're going through your insurance company?

 

I have a vision plan at work that covers one eye exam per year, plus some amount of money to be used for one pair of lenses per year and one pair of frames every other year. I must use one of their approved doctors for that "benefit".

 

It actually costs me less to go to Lenscrafters and pay out of pocket for an exam and new glasses than when I use my insurance and go to their approved place. The eye exam is 100% covered, so the difference is in the frames and lenses. Actually...the last time I went to Lenscrafters, I got an exam and TWO pairs of glasses, and that was still cheaper than when I used my insurance and got one pair of glasses.

My vision plan is the same and I too go to Lenscrafters ... but there was no such comparison when I had open heart surgery and a triple bypass ... For those that say its better to be able to shop services, how the #@&*!@## is someone supposed to make an informed descision about something like that?

 

Oh, and I went directly from the angioplasty table to the hospital via ambulance the same day with surgery the very next. So I was supposed to say "Hey guys, let's stop a minute. I have to shop around for the best deal!! Ya'll got a yellow pages handy??" Didn't happen that way ... I was/am lucky, I have employer sponsored insurance.

[Matts_12GS]

A free market might well lead to affordable, widely available medical care. However, the current system is not a free market. Choices are constrained. Participants are constrained. Procedures are constrained.

 

And so, many of your side of the argument are arguing for more constraint? Don't make sense to me....

 

Good luck with all that

[smiller]

Yep...but what about what we see now...where doctors jack up their rates because you're going through your insurance company?

I don't know about your vision coverage but it's usually just the opposite... on all the medical bills I've seen the contract rate to the insurance company is but a fraction of the standard (what an uninsured person would be charged) rate.

[russell_bynum]

but there was no such comparison when I had open heart surgery and a triple bypass ... For those that say its better to be able to shop services, how the #@&*!@## is someone supposed to make an informed descision about something like that?

 

Oh, and I went directly from the angioplasty table to the hospital via ambulance the same day with surgery the very next. So I was supposed to say "Hey guys, let's stop a minute. I have to shop around for the best deal!! Ya'll got a yellow pages handy??" Didn't happen that way ... I was/am lucky, I have employer sponsored insurance.

 

Absolutely. It's just like with the bikes...when you break down in the middle of nowhere, you get to the nearest ANYTHING that can help. There's really no shopping around in that scenario. But emergency medical is just one part of healthcare, right? Most everything else is such that you have choices.

[russell_bynum]

Yep...but what about what we see now...where doctors jack up their rates because you're going through your insurance company?

I don't know about your vision coverage but it's usually just the opposite... on all the medical bills I've seen the contract rate to the insurance company is but a fraction of the standard (what an uninsured person would be charged) rate.

 

I don't know what to tell you. The insurance-sponsored place has a much smaller selection of frames, it took 2 weeks to get my lenses, etc. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in his office (i.e. His rates are through the roof because he has to pay for the new Wizbang machine that nobody else has yet). I don't know if he jacks up his rates because insurance pays for part of it or if he's expensive because he's a small shop vs. the "buying power" that you get with a big place like lenscrafters, but all I know is that all of the approved eye places on my insurance are about the same and everyone I talk to reports that they're paying similar prices (or that they did it once and then went back to something like lenscrafters since it's cheaper).

[ghaverkamp]

A free market might well lead to affordable, widely available medical care. However, the current system is not a free market. Choices are constrained. Participants are constrained. Procedures are constrained.

 

And so, many of your side of the argument are arguing for more constraint? Don't make sense to me....

 

My "side" is that the current system is not a free market. Those who favor it clearly favor government intrusion into medical care, which is ironic, given what they -- you included -- keep writing here.

[ghaverkamp]

I don't know what to tell you. The insurance-sponsored place has a much smaller selection of frames, it took 2 weeks to get my lenses, etc. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in his office (i.e. His rates are through the roof because he has to pay for the new Wizbang machine that nobody else has yet). I don't know if he jacks up his rates because insurance pays for part of it or if he's expensive because he's a small shop vs. the "buying power" that you get with a big place like lenscrafters, but all I know is that all of the approved eye places on my insurance are about the same and everyone I talk to reports that they're paying similar prices (or that they did it once and then went back to something like lenscrafters since it's cheaper).

 

The smaller guy is probably willing to deal with the insurance companies.

 

Regardless, the market for prescription eyeglasses is hardly an apt comparison. It's been a while since I went to a Lenscrafters, but the last time I was at one, the optometrist was independent of Lenscrafters. More importantly, the market for lens cutters doesn't see near the regulation that the practice of medicine does.

[Dave McReynolds]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yep...but what about what we see now...where doctors jack up their rates because you're going through your insurance company?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't know about your vision coverage but it's usually just the opposite... on all the medical bills I've seen the contract rate to the insurance company is but a fraction of the standard (what an uninsured person would be charged) rate.

 

It is an odd thing, and I don't understand it, but the same thing happened to me. I had cataract surgery done on my left eye, which was covered by my insurance, which is a $5,000 deductible policy, and I had to end up paying most of the $5,000, since I hadn't used up much of the deductible last year.

 

I was so happy with the results on my left eye, that I asked how much it would be to have my right eye done, even though the cataract in the right eye wasn't far enough along that the insurance would cover it. They gave me a flat fee of $3,500 on my right eye, if I paid for it myself. I was delighted with the results on my right eye too.

 

But the bottom line is that I paid more out of my pocket for the insured left eye than I did for the uninsured right eye, and they did exactly the same thing on each eye. I wish I'd known that up front, and I would have just paid out of my pocket for both eyes!

[Ken H.]

For those under an identified threshold who can not afford health insurance, we pay for it (we taxpayers). In exchange for this entitlement, we ask that the uninsured who are now covered provide community service in exchange for this benefit. We solve two problems. We take care of the uninsured and we reduce the costs to communities for services that heretofore were expenditures paid by the taxpayers. I can't imagine anyone receiving these benefits arguing about putting in some community service to receive such a wonderful entitlement, can you?

But those kind of ideas make the broad sweeping generalization that everyone is capable. Walk into any hospital, elderly care facility, mental health facility and other similar care settings and tell me the people there can go out and perform "community service."

 

The problem with all these 'take care of yourself', free-market, buy your own insurance, etc. arguments being made here is that they are being made by, by-and-large I suspect, able-bodied people. (We do ride motorcycles after all). And some seem to be totally lacking in compassion for those less fortunate, some far, far less fortunate, than ourselves. Anyone here have an elderly parent, chronically ill or handicapped child or sibling? Are they all capable of, 'will work/preform service for insurance/healthcare'?

 

 

I've got to say, I find some of the cold-hearted cruel attitudes expressed by some of the people in this thread really, really disturbing.

[StuGotz]

What Ken said, especially the last sentence..

 

MB>