Affordable and Quality Health Care

[finally17]

Yes, indeed, why have central governments?  In my philosophical view, they are inherently evil and should not exist.  If someone has violated your rights then you have a right to get your own fair compensation or to contract with others to help you do so.  Purely voluntary courts, legal system, and police are possible but if someone does not voluntarily place themselves under someone's jurisdiction then the only recourse is to take your recompense by force but that is not unethical because it is not the _initiation_ of force but instead justice.  So, rather than having 200 some sovereign countries, we have 6 billion sovereign individuals.  Countries manage to co-exist peacefully most of the time without a true higher authority and individuals would as well should countries not exist.

This "philosophical view" of yours is one of the most small-minded and ignorant (willfully or not I don't know) of history things I have ever read. I won't waste my time responding to the drivel that hails from these ideas anymore.

[finally17]

anyway back to my OP. I was hoping someone, anyone had some facts on the cost of health care plan that everyone seems to want or vote for. My OP is just a cobble of websites and guesses, not facts.

I think the problem is that no one has a really good idea. Have you watched the democratic debates? Clinton, Obama, et al aren't the experts themselves, but they're basing their numbers on the research and opinions of experts (I hope and assume) and they don't agree on anything, including costs per person, source of funds, extent of coverage, etc.

 

Accurate data just doesn't exist.

[mike777]

anyway back to my OP. I was hoping someone, anyone had some facts on the cost of health care plan that everyone seems to want or vote for. My OP is just a cobble of websites and guesses, not facts.

I think the problem is that no one has a really good idea. Have you watched the democratic debates? Clinton, Obama, et al aren't the experts themselves, but they're basing their numbers on the research and opinions of experts (I hope and assume) and they don't agree on anything, including costs per person, source of funds, extent of coverage, etc.

 

Accurate data just doesn't exist.

Do you think we will get a Nat health care plan without accurate numbers? Do you think Congress will care at all that there are no accurate numbers?

 

As I said in my OP my guess is the votes are there and like the votes on Iraq we have little or conflicting facts.

 

This is starting to feel like the vote on Iraq. Do not confuse with me facts..I vote yes.

[finally17]

Do you think we will get a Nat health care plan without accurate numbers? Do you think Congress will care at all that there are no accurate numbers?

 

As I said in my OP my guess is the votes are there and like the votes on Iraq we have little or conflicting facts.

 

This is starting to feel like the vote on Iraq. Do not confuse with me facts..I vote yes.

It's a complicated process. You have to start by determining to what extent the government will guarantee coverage. After that, the rest should reasonably well fall into place.

 

Whether it will happen or not, who knows. Whether it should happen or not, I also don't know...I lean towards no though.

[helene_t]

Mike, it will have to be a lot more concrete before congress can vote on it. Surely there will be some estimates of the costs by then. That is not to say that 100% reliable forecasts will be available, of course.

 

Btw, there is already something called Medicare and Medicaid, right? The costs related to those programs may give a hint of what it would cost to extrapolate it to the rest of the Americans. Or one can look at the costs in Canada or other countries.

 

The fact that nobody can provide concrete figures on BBF does not imply that such figures don't exist, let alone that they won't be made.

[DrTodd13]

I didn't use the term "right to life." I said that life is sacrosanct. By that I meant that our systems should be designed to preserve it. It's not about making anyone slave to anyone else. It's not about anyone having power of anyone else. It's about one idea being more important than another - life is more important than your free time, or your profits, or whatever else might keep a doctor from treating someone. This doesn't make anyone a slave, it just means there is a TRUTH that is greater than the self. The system is maintained, civilization continues, you are here to disagree, because human life takes primacy over other considerations. That is the truth of which I speak.

 

I don't know what you mean with "the language and the intent of the statement is plain." What statement? You haven't made one. However, the intent of "I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby," is very plain.

 

I never argued anything about happiness or wellness, or anyone's rights. "Rights" is not a word I used. The fact that you don't have a right to life (a point I won't dispute, despite the fact that the only evidence that exists one way or the other is that you're here, aren't you?) does not at all mean that we as a civilization, if we hope to continue, don't have an obligation to maintain your life. To believe otherwise is to open a door you don't want to open.

Blah blah blah....a bunch of modern liberal psycho-babble with no content. You have no reason why life should be sacrosanct. You are totally blinded by the fact that if this really is the most important thing and must be maintained at all costs then if it were necessary to enslave everyone on earth so as maintain life that that would be fine with you. You can claim but we wouldn't have to enslave everyone to maintain life and that is true but you'll never see how utterly broken your philosophy is until you explore the corner cases. You would have physical life but mental death and slavery...what good is that?

 

The typically summary of the Hippocratic oath that you hear is "first, do no harm." I said I didn't know what the rest of it was and what implications it has for treatment without fee. My understanding is that most doctors don't swear to this oath anymore anyway. If what you say is accurate then I would agree it argues for treating without fee...but it also argues that if people came to you in droves you'd have to treat them all even if you never got a moment of time to yourself. As such, it's a pretty stupid oath to take.

 

What does something existing have anything to do with it having a right to exist? Who says we should have a civilization or hope to continue it? I know the door is there and the problem is it is already open and civilization is crossing the threshold unawares to a land of cold scientific naturalistic reductionism where ultimately nothing has meaning. Temporarily we think certain things have meaning but we believe so without any reasons...like life...people will say it is meaningful but can't prove it. I would confront this philosophy head-on and tell people that if this continues that sooner or later we will realize that science and naturalism cannot give meaning to anything and that world will be a hedonistic hell with groups battling it out to maximize their own pleasure. The prospect of an existence without meaning I hope is enough to renew our search for the transcendent. For if there is no transcendent then sentience, consciousness, and pleasure are all illusory and we're really meaningless deterministic cogs in the universal machine.

[Winstonm]

Dr. Todd,

 

I believe part of your economic healthcare argument is valid while another part is not as secure.

 

The simple fact is that if you hide the cost of something and make it appear free then the inevitable result is increased demand, which will result in higher prices and/or rationing or long waits (if prices are not allowed to move).

 

This is dead on right. A concept of "free" healthcare would most certainly drive increased demand, as you say. It should not be conceptualized as "free", but must be understood to be paid by taxation if it is to be used correctly.

 

In the US or in a country with nationalized health care, there is very little downward pressure on prices because people don't shop around for the lowest prices since the costs are hidden.

 

However, on this point I think you are off, somewhat. Healthcare is not as subject to the same cost-saving shopping as would be an automobile or new plasma T.V.

If you have a serious illness, are you going to put out sealed bids and go with the lowest? Obviously, there are aspects of healthcare that respond to fundamental economic principles, but not all. The public will not shop to find a bad, cheap doctor.

 

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure there cannot be an extension from the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to cover threats of death from illness, deprivation of liberty caused by health, and the pursuit of happiness interrupted by grave, but curable illnesses.

 

But really none of this is as important as the simple question of why we as Americans put more monetary emphasis on building a missile shield defense system in Europe and on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than we do on helping our citizens have healthier lives.

 

Do these actions put downward pressure on armament prices?

[finally17]

Btw, there is already something called Medicare and Medicaid, right? The costs related to those programs may give a hint of what it would cost to extrapolate it to the rest of the Americans. Or one can look at the costs in Canada or other countries.

 

The fact that nobody can provide concrete figures on BBF does not imply that such figures don't exist, let alone that they won't be made.

Medicare is an extremely complicated process and it's pricing doesn't necessarily reflect the costs of a universal health care plan.

 

For one, most people with medicare are the elderly. Their health care needs tend to be on the extreme end.

 

For another, medicare does not pay billed costs, nor do they negotiate. They tell the health care provider what they will pay for a given procedure, item, etc, and this tends to be (usually significantly) less than the billed cost. I guess, although I do not know for sure, that the difference is made up for by increased charges to those who are paying full value.

 

But I agree...once certain determinations are made, someone will be able to give an accurate picture of costs.

[Winstonm]

Mike,

 

It's a lot like how the Iraq war would virtually pay for itself by oil - remember that one from Rumsfield?

 

National Health Care will pay for itself once we get the Soylent Green factories up and running and feeding the world.

[Al_U_Card]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of fat...at least.

 

If you are given healthy choices and proper education.....look at that show "Biggest Loser". A bunch of fatties given a modicum of instruction and time and motivation and bingo....instant health.

 

Now, provide healthcare that factors in YOUR contribution to your own state of health and the proper incentives can make it SELF-financing.

[finally17]

Blah blah blah....a bunch of modern liberal psycho-babble with no content. You have no reason why life should be sacrosanct. You are totally blinded by the fact that if this really is the most important thing and must be maintained at all costs then if it were necessary to enslave everyone on earth so as maintain life that that would be fine with you. You can claim but we wouldn't have to enslave everyone to maintain life and that is true but you'll never see how utterly broken your philosophy is until you explore the corner cases. You would have physical life but mental death and slavery...what good is that?

Ok, I kind of lied, I will respond once more. But this isn't really a response to your drivel, it's more a further statement of my own views.

 

To not state a reason life is sacrosanct and to not have one are two totally different things. I did not state one because my reason tends not to be the generally accepted one. But the conclusion is the same.

 

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual. One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount. If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

 

It is not my life that is sacrosanct, but your life and human life in general. Who knows, we all tend towards selfishness, but I would like to believe that should the moment come, I would give mine up for yours.

 

These are high-minded thoughts, ones I fail to live up to. They are a truth greater than I am, I acknowledge that.

[mike777]

"It's a complicated process. You have to start by determining to what extent the government will guarantee coverage. After that, the rest should reasonably well fall into place."

 

 

You may be 100% correct but this really sounds 100% what I heard before the Iraq/Vietnam vote. Word for word. :)

[mike777]

"Mike, it will have to be a lot more concrete before congress can vote on it"

 

You may be 100% correct.

 

Again this sounds almost word for word what I heard before the Iraq/Vietnam vote...

 

Again the costs of the plan or the quality of the plan may really not matter, just vote yes or you do not care/have no heart/ about the uninisured who are sick or dying.

[mike777]

National Health Care will pay for itself once we get the Soylent Green factories up and running and feeding the world.

Finally someone makes a "Modest Proposal" ty WinstonM.

 

I am shocked someone from Europe/Swift did not propose this before you.

[blackshoe]

First off, I said "SEEM TO." That means "this is my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it is not clear and that others will have valid disagreement.

Yes, and I've disagreed. So?

 

Secondly, let me explain why they SEEM TO: because of the word FIRST, which you completely ignored.

 

Making unfounded assumptions will not lead you to the right conclusion, grasshopper. The fact I didn't mention it doesn't mean I ignored it.

 

If the idea that harm is bad takes primacy, is most important, more significant than anything else, then INACTION when you can help is essentially harm, and is therefore as bad as active harm. But all that is just my interpretation.

 

Yes. Again we disagree. That's life.

[luke warm]

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual. One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount. If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

even if this is true, and i think it is, todd's point is that this service should not be coerced, it *can't* be coerced (for long, anyway)

[helene_t]

Mike777, the tone in your posts is as if there is a PC mafia that accuses everybody who dares to ask questions about a national health care of having bad ethics, making it impossible to have a serious discussion about this.

 

I might be misunderstanding you completely, of course.

[mycroft]

There are things that are more effectively done by a monopoly than by the Free Market; and there are things that are better done by a regulated monopoly than by letting the Free Market control.

 

A good example of the first is something with a large initial infrastructure cost; power grid, water distribution, and so on. It is simply so much cheaper for the established company to provide the good or service that it is infeasible for a new competitor to arise; if there are two parallel distribution systems, it will still likely be cheaper for the consumer to buy out the other company and either use the parallel distribution for more capacity or shut one down and save on the maintenance costs.

 

The problem with a monopoly is they get to set prices to whatever profit margin they choose. If the good or service is optional, fine, so be it. If you want it, you pay whatever the market will bear. If you don't want it that much, also fine. But when it comes to services deemed essential by society, this no longer applies.

 

Water. Power. Sewer. Gas heating. Roads. Police and Fire services. Public Education. I'm sure you can think of others.

 

Some things it actually works best if the State is the monopoly; some things work best if the monopoly is regulated by the State. I will admit that "regulating profit" doesn't work so well, as there's no incentive to reduce costs, but other regulation systems can work. Please note that it is also very possible that a State-owned or State-regulated monopoly will actually be much less efficient than one facing competition; I do realize that the State often fails.

 

The current health distribution and insurance system in the United States is arguably one of those things that would work more efficiently as a monopoly. Think, at least, of the wasted time and money involved in redundant administration and marketing.

 

It is arguable that Basic health care is a necessary good as much as Police protection, power and water are. It is arguable that denying access to Basic health care is more costly to society than providing it, as well. If so, the "invisible hand of the market" will fail, as the consumer can't "just walk away". Even though there is competition, there is no incentive to offer a "lower price" to get customers to switch, as you just don't get enough more customers to gain back the loss of revenue from the rest.

 

If the health plan involves keeping the current system and simply supporting those who fall through the cracks currently, it will be horribly expensive and fail (but immensely profitable for health industry companies, especially insurance companies). If the health plan actually involves an solution to the current situation - where, remember, the cost to the government, never mind the privately insured, already significantly exceeds that of other developed countries with a public health system - then it will almost certainly be cheaper.

 

Oh, it'll never fly - there's too much money in the game. Between the hospitals, the doctors, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and everybody else, nobody will be able to put through a system that doesn't protect the status quo. At which point, it'll cost massive taxpayer $$$, and be proof that the private sector does it better (when next the GOP get in).

 

And, of course, there are those who would disagree with some of my assumptions (the "it is arguable" statements). Many, if not most, are American. There's a reason I don't understand the conservatives (Democrats), never mind the ultra-way-far-right,-off-the-scale conservatives in the GOP.

[mike777]

Mike777, the tone in your posts is as if there is a PC mafia that accuses everybody who dares to ask questions about a national health care of having bad ethics, making it impossible to have a serious discussion about this.

 

I might be misunderstanding you completely, of course.

Good grief no, they are very ethical. In fact I am one who asks questions about a Nat. Health care plan.

 

I just think the discussion of a Nat. health care plan sounds alot like the discussion before the vote on Iraq.

1) Americans are in grave danger.

2) We need the central government to intervene and save American lives.

3) All or most experts agree with points one and two.

4) Trust us we have a good plan to save Americans and we have the facts.

5) If you are against this intervention you simple do not care/have no heart about Americans who may die. :P

 

 

 

All of the above may be very true. I have no facts to dispute it. I just want to see the details. Democrats have been in power for years in Congress. They have access to the facts.

 

I just wish to see these facts, the facts that a Nat health care plan is better than free markets.

 

Again the main issue seems to be that increased government control of the health care free market is a net plus.

 

Everyone seems to be in favor of voting for Nat health care plan without any details, just like Iraq. :)

 

My concern is that we will intervene, spend trillions of bucks over years and have a disaster on our hands because we had a lousy plan or false facts. Just like Iraq or Vietnam :)

[mike777]

"The current health distribution and insurance system in the United States is arguably one of those things that would work more efficiently as a monopoly. Think, at least, of the wasted time and money involved in redundant administration and marketing."

 

 

Well if the central government wastes less money/time and increases quality over free markets, this sounds like a big plus.

[han]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

[mike777]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

Yes, as I said in many other posts I think this will be the main and overriding point in the vote.

[PassedOut]

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

A nation can define health care as the right of its citizens whenever it chooses to do so. It is certainly advantageous to eliminate pockets of disease that can spread to the general population. And it is hard to justify denying health care to children, who had no say in choosing parents who do not own health insurance.

[mike777]

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

A nation can define health care as the right of its citizens whenever it chooses to do so. It is certainly advantageous to eliminate pockets of disease that can spread to the general population. And it is hard to justify denying health care to children, who had no say in choosing parents who do not own health insurance.

Agree, how can you vote against a Nat health care plan or little children die.

[jdonn]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I love you han.