Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Bitman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They have also been talking about rewarding doctors for preventative treatment on patients ...

It's not the doctor's responsibility to take care of your body, it's *yours*. We need to given *you* an incentive to stay healthy -- by making you pay for your own health.

Another thing that is a major problem is the cost of care in the last few months of life. We need to find a way to reduce those costs.

It's physically impossible. If it costs less to extend your life, then you will live longer .. which increases the costs. It either costs an infinite amount of money to keep you alive, or someone must declare it's time for you to die. Who do you trust with that responsibility?

Here is a list of a few executive salaries for 2006-7

You're just trolling now. Capitalism is founded on people keeping what they earn. If you don't like it, you're free to attack capitalism. But don't go posting this crap pretending it has anything to do with health care.

I'm afraid this won't get done because Obama is cowtowing to the very same people who have held up health care reform for the past century.

That would be me. And I thank him for it.

Really, if republicans and the AMA and insurance companies had such great ideas on how to fix it, how come they haven't done anything? In my opinion they shouldn't get to have any input.

Now I'm confused. You want the government to take over health care, yet you admit they have no clue how to run it. What exactly are you arguing?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bitman

It's physically impossible. If it costs less to extend your life, then you will live longer .. which increases the costs. It either costs an infinite amount of money to keep you alive, or someone must declare it's time for you to die. Who do you trust with that responsibility?

Someone whose profit potential is not increased by my death.

Insurance companies pay their shareholders out of the money they take in as premiums, but don't pay out in claims. And they are primarily beholden to their shareholders.

They complain that they couldn't compete with a program with no profit motive. That sounds like a plus to me.

[Bitman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Someone whose profit potential is not increased by my death.

And who would that be? Your immediate family would love to keep you around, but the rest of us would rather use the space you take up for ourselves.

*You* are the only person who can make that decision correctly, and you can only make it if you directly control your own health.

The rest of your post was a rag on capitalism, which is not relevant here. I'm happy to grant insurance companies all the profit they can make, but only where health insurance is the right thing to do, and only where these companies can compete.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bitman

*You* are the only person who can make that decision correctly, and you can only make it if you directly control your own health.

Don't worry. There's no plan that will affect the ability of the wealthy to self-finance their own treatment. But if I'm on a health plan, I'd trust a government beaurocrat over a health insurance company.

I wasn't ragging on capitalism; jut pointing out that there are some areas where market pressure isn't in the right direction.

[whosonfirst]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Don't worry. There's no plan that will affect the ability of the wealthy to self-finance their own treatment. But if I'm on a health plan, I'd trust a government beaurocrat over a health insurance company.

I wasn't ragging on capitalism; jut pointing out that there are some areas where market pressure isn't in the right direction.

On the contrary most government run single payer(governemnt run) plans DO NOT allow for opt outs or selectively going outside the plan to your own doctor. They control by making it illegal for the Doctor to treat outside the plan sometimes and continue to participate in the plan for the balance of his practice.

Lets not get distracted by the thousands of pages of details that are in these proposals. There is only one thing to consider. If the real objective is to control costs-and I believe that is NOT the real objective-then we need to look at the federal governments track record of 'controlling costs': medicare/medicaid costs 100's of percent higher than initially projected; education spending out of control for declining performance, $800 toilet seats and $140 screws, etc.

Or on a larger scale the overall success of centrally controlled governments at providing a decent quality of life for their citizenry- USSR, Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and how many others.

Bottom line --with the 'awful' healthcare system we have here-you can count on one hand the number of people leaving the US to get better health care elsewhere. And those are invariably for experimental treatments. And when residents of only those moderately socialist places like France, Scandinavia, Canada-with their government run programs need superior care, they come here.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by whosonfirst

On the contrary most government run single payer(governemnt run) plans DO NOT allow for opt outs or selectively going outside the plan to your own doctor. They control by making it illegal for the Doctor to treat outside the plan sometimes and continue to participate in the plan for the balance of his practice.

First, I don't know about "most", but it is definitely not the case for all single-payer plans.

Second, there is no single payer plan being proposed for the US.

[whosonfirst]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

First, I don't know about "most", but it is definitely not the case for all single-payer plans.

Second, there is no single payer plan being proposed for the US.

Are doctors who accept medicare allowed to treat medicare participants outside of medicare? NO!. Same in England, Canada, etc. And those are the systems advocates here look to as models of government plans.

In fact, they ARE proposing a single-payer in practice. By artificially creating a lower rate schedule people will opt for lower direct out of pocket and eventually dry up private carriers.

If they thought they could get the votes for an openly stated single-payer plan they would go right for it, because the outcome will not provide lower overall costs-its impossible when the government runs things-they would go right for it. But the words 'single paper' scare people too much so they put it in the details while denying it publicly.

[Bitman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There's no plan that will affect the ability of the wealthy to self-finance their own treatment. But if I'm on a health plan, I'd trust a government bureaucrat over a health insurance company.

I don't understand your point ... You support a plan where only the wealthy can choose their only treatment, while the middle class is stuck with the federal standard treatment? I'd prefer a system where everyone can choose their treatment.

Originally Posted by many people

automotive insurance

This automotive comparison really doesn't work. The government mandates liability insurance, which covers your damage to other people's property. Comprehensive insurance covers damage to your own property, and is totally optional. Health insurance is like comprehensive. And yes, I really believe it should be optional.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You are giving $1000+ a year to your car insurance company to pay for someone else's car wreck. You will get no refund when you stop driving, even if you've never had a wreck in your life. How is that not socialism?

No, you're paying $1000/yr for your own wrecks. I pay $350/yr for mine. It might be a kind of socialism, but it's arguable -- only people with cars pay car insurance. Conversely, people who have no children still pay for public schools.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Very true. And that fits the capitalistic model. Volume pricing will always get a better deal than you can get on your own.

No, it's not true at all. Negotiation may be able to get a good deal (depending on the skill and drive of the negotiators) but only competition can get the best price. (And there's no guarantee the government negotiators will be any good.)

And wait, there's another gaping hole in this meme -- Who is this single seller we're having such a hard time getting good prices from?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bitman

I don't understand your point ... You support a plan where only the wealthy can choose their only treatment, while the middle class is stuck with the federal standard treatment? I'd prefer a system where everyone can choose their treatment.

Me too, but I don't expect medical care to be free any time soon. The next closest thing would be single payer, which is a non-starter at this point. So my choices are going to be made through a health plan of some sort. And if someone is going to be in charge of deciding what treatments I can get, I don't want it to be someone who gets to keep any money they don't use to pay for my treatment.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And if someone is going to be in charge of deciding what treatments I can get, I don't want it to be someone who gets to keep any money they don't use to pay for my treatment.

That is the system we already have. If you pay for insurance that is what you get now. Same in an HMO. Same for any plan the Federal government is going to offer.