[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
In short, the value of a human life in the Netherlands is set at 20,000 euros ($28,000) per year, and prevention had better be priced below that. (In the US, HPV is recommended freely to women in before their early 20’s.)
I don’t object to this type of research, or this line of thinking. But we live in a country for which life never has limits and money is no object. We are not prepared–politically and perhaps ethically–to live within limits. And it is going to happen faster than any of realize.
[/quote]
This here is the crux of the issue. Too many in this country view health care as a right and the bureaucrats in office have taken it upon themselves to ensure everyone has this so-called right. Mr. President keeps reminding us that if we continue on the path we are on we will bankrupt the country, yet he falls victim to the same line of thinking but to an extreme.
[quote]tedro wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
In short, the value of a human life in the Netherlands is set at 20,000 euros ($28,000) per year, and prevention had better be priced below that. (In the US, HPV is recommended freely to women in before their early 20’s.)
I don’t object to this type of research, or this line of thinking. But we live in a country for which life never has limits and money is no object. We are not prepared–politically and perhaps ethically–to live within limits. And it is going to happen faster than any of realize.
This here is the crux of the issue. Too many in this country view health care as a right and the bureaucrats in office have taken it upon themselves to ensure everyone has this so-called right. Mr. President keeps reminding us that if we continue on the path we are on we will bankrupt the country, yet he falls victim to the same line of thinking but to an extreme.[/quote]
You know, I would like to see them at least propose an amdendent to the Constitution making health care a right. Not the freedom to pursue health-care, but the “right” to have it handed to you thanks to the taxpayer. Let’s do this honestly.
You know, I would like to see them at least propose an amdendent to the Constitution making health care a right. Not the freedom to pursue health-care, but the “right” to have it handed to you thanks to the taxpayer. Let’s do this honestly.[/quote]
Would that not mean that the .gov could draft doctors if need be?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ve read that preventative care would actually cost us more.
Where? Not saying that you’re wrong, just not what I’ve heard/read.[/quote]
It does, because not all people get sick or will not follow through. Fat bastards don’t stay healthy.
There is no reason that an average person cannot do his own preventative care. Working out, watching what you eat, doing some stretching, light weights and low impact aerobics. My doctor bills averaged 100$ or less a year for maybe thirty years, other than some chiropractic work until my gall operation this year. I did it on my own.
Adding in bodywork due to injuries and I doubt it was 10$ a week on average. How much does your average ididt spend on lottery , booze, and ciggies, and fast food a week to hurt themselves.
Preventative care is a smoke screen. Prostate exams, yes. Breast exams and some lab work yearly, yeah. but this is cheap overall.
People are lousy at doing their job on the patient. Doctors I would give an a to b at worst on average, insurance companies b+ to c on average, and patients are being held back on average.
We need no health care reform, we need individual responsibility and taking care of yourself reform.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
tedro wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
In short, the value of a human life in the Netherlands is set at 20,000 euros ($28,000) per year, and prevention had better be priced below that. (In the US, HPV is recommended freely to women in before their early 20’s.)
I don’t object to this type of research, or this line of thinking. But we live in a country for which life never has limits and money is no object. We are not prepared–politically and perhaps ethically–to live within limits. And it is going to happen faster than any of realize.
This here is the crux of the issue. Too many in this country view health care as a right and the bureaucrats in office have taken it upon themselves to ensure everyone has this so-called right. Mr. President keeps reminding us that if we continue on the path we are on we will bankrupt the country, yet he falls victim to the same line of thinking but to an extreme.
You know, I would like to see them at least propose an amdendent to the Constitution making health care a right. Not the freedom to pursue health-care, but the “right” to have it handed to you thanks to the taxpayer. Let’s do this honestly.[/quote]
We also need a right to food, shelter and clothing which as everyone knows is more important.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
So what if they get put in jail, we as tax payers pay for those as well. In the end we’re already paying for other people’s medical bills. The difference if there were a public option however would be that people would be able to receive prevantative care and therefore less emergency room care (which is considerably more expensive). Obviously there is no way to completely eliminate emergency room care, but preventative procedures would to a long way in lessening the amount.
I don’t deny that the tax payer will still feel the burden at this point, but it is now a matter of principal. While I would feel contempt for those that accept a service and do not pay, I am much more comfortable paying taxes to create a deterrent for the activity than paying taxes to support the activity.
[/quote]
But, if everyone had health care (could afford health care or it was provided to them as a citizen), it would also greatly lessen the occurrence, or even completely eliminate it. True, you’d still have the issue of how to pay for it, which I’m not denying is an important issue. But it would likely work better than simply throwing them in jail.
I agree, the public option needs to have oversight. But honestly, do you believe that the private companies have anything other than profit in mind, or that they have operated under anything resembling “strict” regulations? They raise prices regularly without increasing quality or quantity of care, regularly deny people care that their plans promise them, and regularly drop or deny patients who are deemed as “losses/potential losses”.
Also, there are several private insurance plans which already receive subsidies from the government to operate. Not to mention that they’re all already taking as many dollars as possible to remain operational. They are providing something which is pretty much a necessity for survival in many cases, and therefore have all the power in the situation. People either pay them what they want, or they die or suffer horrifically.
It’s not like say a car manufacturer in a big city, where people can completely refuse to buy the car and still be able to function/live successfully by using completely different avenues of transportation like buses or subways/trains. In other words, people have no bargaining chips that they can lay on the table to haggle with these companies.
A public option would give people a method of bargaining with these health insurance companies. No, not the ideal solution, but a better solution than what we’ve got currently.
That wouldn’t put the individual in charge of anything though, because again, the average person has no bargaining chips in that game. Also, different states have different laws regarding regulation, and eliminating that would pretty much take away those states power (which again I don’t think that most people would want) and give it solely to the federal government.
You mentioned the Amish, and in another post (which seems to have been deleted) described how the whole community puts aside money so that if one of it’s members becomes say deathly sick or injured, they can receive the care they need. Can I ask if you are in favor or opposition to the way that the Amish handle health care? Because, that’s basically exactly what the public option is. Everyone (tax payers/citizens) put in a little money so that should one of them require health care, they can receive it. It’s not socialized medicine because the hospitals are still privately owned though. The VA would be an example of true socialized medicine.
And if you are against it, why did you bring it up?
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
tedro wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
In short, the value of a human life in the Netherlands is set at 20,000 euros ($28,000) per year, and prevention had better be priced below that. (In the US, HPV is recommended freely to women in before their early 20’s.)
I don’t object to this type of research, or this line of thinking. But we live in a country for which life never has limits and money is no object. We are not prepared–politically and perhaps ethically–to live within limits. And it is going to happen faster than any of realize.
This here is the crux of the issue. Too many in this country view health care as a right and the bureaucrats in office have taken it upon themselves to ensure everyone has this so-called right. Mr. President keeps reminding us that if we continue on the path we are on we will bankrupt the country, yet he falls victim to the same line of thinking but to an extreme.
You know, I would like to see them at least propose an amdendent to the Constitution making health care a right. Not the freedom to pursue health-care, but the “right” to have it handed to you thanks to the taxpayer. Let’s do this honestly.
We also need a right to food, shelter and clothing which as everyone knows is more important.[/quote]
Interesting point, all 3 of those are already provided in the form of shelters and subsidies though.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ve read that preventative care would actually cost us more.
Where? Not saying that you’re wrong, just not what I’ve heard/read.
It does, because not all people get sick or will not follow through. Fat bastards don’t stay healthy.
There is no reason that an average person cannot do his own preventative care. Working out, watching what you eat, doing some stretching, light weights and low impact aerobics. My doctor bills averaged 100$ or less a year for maybe thirty years, other than some chiropractic work until my gall operation this year. I did it on my own.
[/quote]
Completely agree. I totally understand people’s frustration with the thought of having to pay the health care bills for fat, lazy, horribly eating people. Prevention and actually taking care of oneself would go a long way towards fixing the issue in the first place.
Again, we’re in total agreement.
Again, agreed. There are certain tests which should be run on people within high risk groups, as well as those which, in the absence of would undoubtedly lead to a very high occurrence of more serious issues (like regular dental cleanings). And yes, these would be pretty cheap overall.
[quote]
People are lousy at doing their job on the patient. Doctors I would give an a to b at worst on average, insurance companies b+ to c on average, and patients are being held back on average.
We need no health care reform, we need individual responsibility and taking care of yourself reform.[/quote]
I largely agree with you. If people took better care of themselves there would be a lot less insurance claims and thus likely much less of a problem in the first place. I still believe that we need some form of health insurance reform though, as the insurance companies have been allowed to run rampant to the point where it is becoming increasingly difficult for the average, healthy individual to afford care.
You did make some great points though, all of which I agree with, and I understand your frustration.
If you’re not in favor of the proposed public option, how would you suggest that we solved the problem?
You know, I would like to see them at least propose an amdendent to the Constitution making health care a right. Not the freedom to pursue health-care, but the “right” to have it handed to you thanks to the taxpayer. Let’s do this honestly.
Would that not mean that the .gov could draft doctors if need be?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But, if everyone had health care (could afford health care or it was provided to them as a citizen), it would also greatly lessen the occurrence, or even completely eliminate it. True, you’d still have the issue of how to pay for it, which I’m not denying is an important issue. But it would likely work better than simply throwing them in jail.
[/quote]
Jail time would be more of a deterrant than anything. Most people without insurance that have just had their life saved would gladly set up a payment plan with the hospital. It is only necessary to prevent people from walking out without paying and facing no repercussions, just like at any other business.
Actually, with the way the public option is currently structured it would do the exact opposite. The national health insurance exchange will be set up so that policies operate according to a plan set by the government. There is no bargaining with the government.
If you want to give the consumer bargaining power then two things need to be done. First, the consumer must be directly in charge of his or her health care. Most of us take whatever insurance is offered through our employer and don’t bother to shop around for individual policies. This is logical given that the employer is paying for it and most people are going to pay extra for something they can get for free. The group policy set up allows insurance companies to recalculate rates on a yearly basis, and the individual usually doesn’t care because the group as a whole hedges risk enough that the company is unlikely to be dropped completely.
Rewriting policies on a yearly basis won’t fly with the consumer when their rates are subsidized by the rest of the group. Nobody in their right mind would buy an insurance policy if they know before hand the policy can completely change in just one year. This is why moving away from the employer based system will force the insurance companies to create health care policies that are modeled after whole-life or term-life policies. That is, the rates will be figured upon commencement of the policy and fixed for the duration of the policy. This would allow you to get a health care policy at a young age and have contractual coverage for the rest of your life. Just like life insurance, it would also carry a cash value that can be used to cover you for a period of time if you are unable to make payments.
In regards to your comments on profit, you are completely mistaken. This is the number one thing that Obama is saying that is getting on my nerves right now. The majority of hospitals in this country are not-for-profit, and a very large number of health insurance companies are mutual companies, or coops. I’ve been trying to find an overall number for a while but haven’t yet found that statistic. Mutual companies are essentially owned by the policy holders. Any ‘profits’ that the company sees are reinvested into the company to make premiums lower. While I don’t doubt that there are some CEO’s and boards out there with deceitful motives, the vast majority of mutual companies exist for the customer. This is the very basis that insurance was created upon. A group gets together, pools some money for a specific risk, and agrees to help whoever comes under duress and needs the money.
Under our current system you would be right. The individual does have no bargaining power. Again, this is one of the major reasons to get away from the employer-based system. It would not need to take any powers from the state government. Should interstate health insurance be allowed, it would create a good reason for the states to create a governing board to keep regulations consistent. It would not have to be mandatory, but it would be in everyone’s best interest for states to adhere to the same standards. This is precisely how these sorts of issues are supposed to work. The states may ask the federal government to create the board, but membership and adhereance would be strictly voluntary.
[quote]
You mentioned the Amish, and in another post (which seems to have been deleted) described how the whole community puts aside money so that if one of it’s members becomes say deathly sick or injured, they can receive the care they need.[/quote]Not sure what you are referencing, but I wouldn’t refute these statements. [quote]Can I ask if you are in favor or opposition to the way that the Amish handle health care? Because, that’s basically exactly what the public option is. Everyone (tax payers/citizens) put in a little money so that should one of them require health care, they can receive it. It’s not socialized medicine because the hospitals are still privately owned though. The VA would be an example of true socialized medicine.
And if you are against it, why did you bring it up?[/quote]
I’m not at all against it (the Amish way). All this amounts to is a very basic mutual insurance company.
EDIT: When I say “coop”, I only mean it in the traditional sense as in a basic mutual company. In no way should this be confused with quasi-coop idea that is currently being thrown around as a form of health care reform.