Why ever bring up anything? It is relevant to ask yourself the question. Which you obviously have based on your second statement. THAT is why I brought it up, because I want to hear your reasoning for believing this:
everybody is going to die, everybody has to deal with death. that doesn't mean I'm against healthcare reform, just I think at some point you have to decide what is coverable and what is inevitable. I think to truly solve this problem you have to really get back to the basics of what health insurance should be for.
Yes because deregulation does such a wonderful job of keeping costs down and benefiting everyone. For evidence just see the current financial crisis. Good thing Glass Steagal was repealed and that costly regulation lifted. Healthcare costs do not result from over regulation. Number one we all take on additional and unnecessary services, we are all complicit with this. Patients, providers, and insurance companies. There was a very famous Dartmouth study that looked at the amount and cost of services that people were taken and the results of their health. Basically more services does not equal better health. Number two Big Pharma spending Billions on advertising to people who can't even buy their products. A waste that could be used to lower costs and it causes patients to pressure their doctors to overmedicate them. Number three the cost of the uninsured. The largest group of uninsured are age 20-30. Basically young healthy people who never go to the doctor and voluntarily forgo coverage. Older people who tend to go to the doctor more are the ones that make sure they are covered. So the risk pool has a lot of people who use more than they contribute (older) without the balance of those that use less than they contribute (age 20-30). The result? Premiums rising by diuble digits year after year. This is the reason for mandated coverage. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/TheEconomicCaseforHealthCareReform/ Download this read it and educate yourself on what is really going on.
You're funny - the gov't has been out of Health Care and that's why costs are spiraling out of control. You think the costs are rising because of malpractice? That's not the case. It's rising for many reasons, but think about who's making money in Health Care. Which are the companies making billions and billions of dollars? It ain't the gov't my friend. Why are you against competition as a means to bring down costs? It's actually a conservative idea - free market ya know? Ever hear of it?
We spend more on health care than any other industrialized nation and yet we have one of the highest infant mortality rates. I wonder how you would feel if you found out that you and your loved ones aren't covered for serious problems like cancer. Unless you have the very best health plan, or at least 2 to 3 policies - you most likely aren't going to get fully covered. You might get 80%. Let me ask you, if a loved one needs 300k in treatment, do you have $60k to pay for that? You sure you want to take that "everyone is going to die anyway" angle?
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jng4TnKqy6A&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jng4TnKqy6A&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> It reminded me of this video, the video Itself makes some great points!!! -RB
My personal problem with health care in the US is how high the bar is set for doctors. There really are plenty of common problems people have that does not require 10 years of med school/training to tell me. Seriously, is it really necessary to give a $100 bill to tell me whether I have a sore throat or a strep throat?
When I go to the doctor, I almost always see an FNP. Then, if the problem warrants, they have the doctor come and see me or refer me to a specialist. It keeps costs down for my clinic and has been extremely effective for me.
Considering that they are hell-bent on opposing national health insurance, and want the current system to continue - this argument seems at cross-purposes with what you are proposing. You're right - in a fee-for-service, largely unregulated system, if one is willing and able to pay, you can in fact get an MRI or whatever you want. In a more managed/single payer system, you have to wait. The problem is that this luxury comes at a horrendous cost of having an incredibly inefficient system. It's like the difference between having an Alfa Romeo Spyder and a Ford Focus. The Alfa Romeo is a way cooler car to have - I mean it's not even a contest. It performs better, looks better, and is basically superior to the Ford Focus in every way. Of course, it comes at a much higher cost, and if you have to actually rely on the Alfa Romeo to get you to work every day, good luck with that one as they're about as reliable as Rafer Alston's 3 point shot. This also tends to highlight the information problem that Arrow and others identified which makes health care an inefficient market. People tend to believe that more, faster services (reinforced by providers in a fee for service model) are always better. Unfortunately, that is not always the case and one of the reasons why the market won't ever efficiently allocate services when left unregulated. Two things, 1 - given budgetary/medicare issues and rising costs, waiting will generally just make things worse before they make things better. 2 - What is a better solution? Again I keep getting back to this - people reject every single proposed fix and say "we need to wait for something better" - what is this better thing? There are dozens of countries that have experimented with a variety of solutions and they seem to work relatively well, at a lower cost, than our current system. I mean people have been studying this problem and trying to implement something in the US for nearly 100 years now, which has been studied by hundreds of thousands of researchers in various fields, who have produced reams of data. The "hey whoa, slow down!" mentality is kind of stupid against that backdrop.
yes i'm positive i want to go with this angle because that's the point. I think part of the reason the system is broken is because we expect the system to cover everything. and I think reforming has to look at what we are willing to pay for each to keep each other alive.
A right cannot impose a burden on another. You don't have a right to impose the burden of your existence on someone else.
I hate going and him telling me what I already know. Its like when I had pinkeye earlier this year. I knew what was wrong, it was obvious, but I needed a prescription which costs $4. I had to pay $100 though to go see a doctor to get my prescription.
What the hell do you think insurance is? Your group plan that you have through your job IS basically socialized. You and I both work at the job, I go to the doctor constantly and you never go. Guess what we both pay the same amount in premiums despite the fact I am taking more in benefits. If I cost the plan hundreds of thousands because of cancer and the premiums go up, you will pay more in premiums as well. We tolerate this because healthcare is something we all need, we all use, and one procedure costs more than most people's annual salaries. You and millions of other Americans have been the beneficiary of this socialized system for decades now. You don't like the fact that someone elses burden is being imposed on you (like my cancer in the aforementioned scenario), than go and get a private health plan. God help you if you develop cancer, diabetes, lupus, or break a bone. You'll either be dropped or they will raise your rates to the point where you might as well pay in cash. Got it John Galt?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bj6PdoZaqCI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bj6PdoZaqCI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It is so ironic that the person who cannot seem to come up with any proof or evidence that his assertions are true is the one accusing the other side of being fools. What a maroon.
