Health Care Reform (826 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.02 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by sword (View user info) at 2009-09-29 00:54:35 EDT
The current discussion on health care is misguided. It seeks to treat the symptoms of a problem rather than the cause. Current proposals to resolve health care concerns are unsustainable or torpid. There are two difficulties related to health care and I will explain a solution capable of handling each issue efficiently that entails no additional cost and does not involve the creation of any law or government office.
The first problem: growing numbers of people cannot afford medical care. It is undesirable and, by some interpretations, perhaps unconstitutional to allow the cost of a healthy life to exceed the grasp of the common citizen. This is widely understood, what is important is why health care costs are growing so quickly.
Two reasons contribute to this cause. First, health care is inelastic in economic terms. Meaning, if you have ten thousand dollars and a fatal problem you will buy exactly the same amount of medical treatment if the treatment cost one thousand dollars or if it cost ten thousand. With an elastic product if the price goes up then the quantity purchased will go down and so the free market can effectively set fair prices.
Since nobody buys health care they don't need and everyone will buy as much as they do need (and can afford) health care is very inelastic. That means it will not be priced efficiently in our current market. If you were the head of a health care company and you had to choose between selling a certain number of a product at a thousand dollars and selling the same quantity of the product at ten thousand or twenty thousand or even fifty thousand dollars which would you choose?
This simple example illustrates a major problem with health care and the predominant reason
why health care costs are soaring out of control - they are allowed to. The companies responsible for pricing health care benefit from higher prices and suffer virtually no loss in customers.
There is one similar issue that contributes to the the poor state of health care. The incentive of companies developing health care products is to develop materials that treat symptoms instead of cure disease. This may seem like an unfair charge to level against the health care corporations, but I am not making it as a claim about their morality, only as a claim about their economic interest. If you can sell medicine and procedures to everyone who has a disease at any price you choose are you better off selling them a one time cure or a constant supply of medicine? Health care companies have acted and will continue to act in their own fiscal interests - and I believe that they should. What we need to do is cause the best economic opportunity for health care companies to become quickly and cheaply curing ailments. We can do this.
I have thus far discussed problems with our current health care system and reasons why allowing the health care system to remain unchanged will cause problems. There are some who suggest that we should adopt a public health care policy wherein the government provides health insurance at competitive pricing in an effort to create artificial competition for insurance companies and cause lower prices. Ideas of this nature are well intentioned but flawed.
There is a truism, "The government never gave a dime to a man that it didn't take away from another man". The government can only get money by taking it away from other people in the form of taxes. Worse, the government is inherently inefficient because it must pay for its own bureaucracy. If a project costs X dollars to complete the government must spend X + Y dollars to complete it where Y is the cost of gathering X dollars. In practice government inefficiency tends to be worse still as government offices can be bloated with unnecessary personnel and procedures that exist because the government does not need to be competitive with any other company. Considering the inherent inefficiency of the government in addition to the fact that that the government must first take money away from citizens before it can supply money to other people I think we should conclude that if government spending can be avoided - it should be.
The government currently spends more than sixteen percent of its total budget on health care and that figure is projected to rise to twenty percent by 2016 without reform. By establishing a public health care option we commit ourselves to spending even more money on health care. Exactly how much more money would be spent is unclear and will remain so until details of the public option are made known.
I make this point to express a fundamental problem with the idea of a public option. We already spent enormous amounts of money on health care and the public option would require we spend more still. Just as health care has become too costly for some individuals to afford it is rapidly becoming too costly for our country to afford. A further point against the public option is that it treats the symptoms of the problem, people can't afford health insurance, and at the same time it ignores the root of the problem - health care is too expensive.
The public option tries to reduce insurance pricing by creating government interference in the market. I propose that we can actually reduce pricing in the long run by reducing government interference with the market. My solution is simple, direct the United States Patent Office to decline any patent application to a drug or medical procedure that does not cure a disease.
This idea will take time to work, but it will be effective. By reducing patents granted we will increase competition. Drugs, procedures and devices that do not cure diseases will not be patented and therefore many companies will be able to produce and sell those devices as generic or "Knock offs". The increase in competition handles the problem of price inelasticity. Health care companies will not be able to charge whatever they want for drugs or machines because their competitors will be able to knock off their products and undercut their prices (if those prices are too high).
Now, the reason behind patents in the first place is that they encourage innovation. By refusing patents to drugs that do not cure ailments will have the effect of discouraging the development of drugs that do not cure ailments. This will cause a shift in incentive. In order to continue charging exorbitant prices health care companies need to be protected by patents. To get health care patents then they would be forced to develop cures for ailments as opposed to merely treating symptoms. In this way we will reduce health care prices in the long run dramatically by curing disease instead of treating it for years.
Another advantage of this plan is that it requires no additional government agency. No new laws have to be created since the patent office is free to grant or decline patents at its discretion. We also retain the ability to reward great new drugs with patents even if they do not technically cure a disease and by doing so we could continue to spur innovation of high quality medicine. Since no new government agencies would exist there would be no additional cost to the tax payer. The only cost would be to health care companies who currently abuse government laws to take advantage of selling their inelastic products at exorbitant prices.
User Reviews
Submitted by paxilliona (user info) at 2009-10-09 18:20:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
politics. no thanks.
Submitted by RePet (user info) at 2009-10-04 03:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Your proposal for health care reform smacks of free-market, libertarian ideas. For this I am grateful. Too many political pundits and supposed educated peoples are quick to run to the government to cure our problems. Unfortunately, most of the time this consists of drinking brackish water to cure dehydration.
While correct in many aspects (government incentives, inelasticity), you leave out fatal details. Health care is not expensive because organizations are able to charge whatever they want. If that were the case, no company would ever go bankrupt for they could merely keep raising prices above their costs of production. Obviously, this is not the case and many hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, life-insurance companies, and other competitors in the health care industry have gone out of business.
It is true health care is becoming too expensive. While I applaud your disdain for our "paternalistic" government, you go no further in assigning blame. Is it possible government has raised costs, albeit inadvertently? Is it possible that the collective body we elect as representative agents have contributed SUBSTANTIALLY to the current state our health care is in?
Not only is it probable, it is true.
Take state governments for instance. Unlike other forms of insurance (automobile, flood, volcano), you are not allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. This artificial barrier automatically reduces competition by limiting the number of competitors to whomever happens to sell insurance inside state lines. Our President likes to talk about the Public Option as a means to increase competition; if it were true that one more competitor could dramatically lower costs, what could dozens do? As it stands, citizens of New Jersey are only allowed to purchase health insurance from New Jersey companies. Limits on entry, thus, stifle competition and erect monopolistic fortresses whereby companies have considerable strength in mandating benefits, costs, and prices. In this manner, the state has created a health insurance monopoly. Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute speaks eloquently on this subject (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10553). Discrepancies across state lines are not minor, either. As a matter of fact, they vary considerably. In New Jersey, yearlong benefits for a family of four cost roughly $27,000. This is because New Jersians are forced to pay for treatments and provisions above and beyond what most people would pay. These include in-vitro fertilization, abortion services, and cremation procedures. If health insurance were allowed to be purchased across state lines, tight-fisted New Jersians would be able to buy insurance from, say, Kentucky, where some of the cheapest policies come in at a little over $8,000 a year for a family of four. This would force neighboring insurance markets to meet consumer demand or become insolvent. Studies done indicate as many as $17 million uninsured could receive treatment, without employing any extra bureaucrats and without adding a dime to our deficit.
The second hole you miss is that of employer-provided health care. Most of the country's health care dollars does not come from Joe Smith choosing company A over company B, but Joe Smith's employer, with union mandates and tax incentives, choosing company A over company B. Since you seem to be at least halfway educated in economics, we can talk about the fallacy of composition. Choosing an entire health insurance blanket to cover all an industry's workers is only cost-efficient because employer-provided insurance is a relic of the '50s whereby postwar inflation was so great, that it was made illegal for employers to increase their workers wages proportionally. Thus, they started offering health benefits as an incentive (in addition to wages). Congress deemed the taxes levied on employer-provided health benefits should be removed, and what we find today is an uneven playing field where it is more efficient for a CEO to buy health insurance for his workers rather than they buying it themselves. The remedy is very simple. Either inflict the incidence of taxation on the employer, or give the employees the same benefit (to buy insurance with before-tax dollars). Either decision would allow for smarter choices to be made and save money.
In my eyes, these are the two most glaring examples of government mismanagement. Don't get me wrong, you are right to shy away from Uncle Sam as a panacea for our ills. I ask, however, that you look at what he has already done.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-10-02 23:09:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Let's adjust that rating.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-10-02 23:08:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I really like you, Sword. Even though we disagreed on the salient points that I illustrated below, your replies are lucid, well thought out, and so well written that they "seem" unassailable. What Uber needs—concerning how to rejuvenate this site—is more peep like you posting regularly.
I've been here about 11-12 years, Cakes is an alter (for my own reasons) and I can say you're civility stands out. We disagree on things, but that is the crux of intellectual dialogue that actually TAKES one to a diff view.
Carry on and well done.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2009-10-02 19:06:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Liquidice281
So what, we lose a few poor people because they lack proper healthcare. They should have done more....
-
This is very easy to say, assuming that neither you or your loved ones are are suffering or dying without medical care.
As I mentioned the number of Americans without health insurance is around 37 million. This is not "Some poor people", this is almost 10% of our country!
I didn't mean to insult your sense of nationalism by making this post. Even if you think things are "Okay" now, surely you acknowledge that they could be better. That is what we should be doing, trying to improve our system, make things better for future Americans and for ourselves. Making things better is the aim of my proposal, and doing it without increasing taxes and decreasing government interference.
P.S. For an interesting read you should sometimes look into information on North Korea and how heavily the North Koreans indoctrinate and brainwash their children. Their children think North Korea is the greatest country in the world, the best in just about every aspect.
Submitted by Liquidice281 (user info) at 2009-10-01 12:15:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
read this: http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight_indarchive.php?id=1696
The US is the pioneer in medical innovations because it is privatized. Other countries suckle of the teat of the private American healthcare industry.
Our shit is fine -- mind your own damn business and your 45% taxes. Shit is OK in America. When the Germans rise again maybe we'll come save your asses again. So what, we lose a few poor people because they lack proper healthcare. They should have done more....
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2009-10-01 05:14:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
FilledWithHate and Cheerios
-
I think the issue of whether or not the government is more efficient than the private sector is fairly complex, its not something that is easy to measure. As FilledWithHate pointed out there are certainly examples where the government can and has efficiently managed some enterprises and to be frank there is just no way to know whether or not the government would or could run health care efficiently short of letting them try.
This said, I do not feel it is especially important to the debate at hand. There are reasons why, in the United States, we favor free enterprise over government run business. Letting the government into business expands the power of the government in dangerous ways and it also tends to corrupt the actions of the government. If health care became big business for the government the government would then have an incentive to pass or enforce legislation to help its own business or to hurt its competitors and so on instead of just having incentives to help out the people.
The formation of our country reflects the idea that, where possible, the government should stay out of business. There are some exceptions, the post office for example was founded because it seemed like national mail would be an insurmountable problem for public enterprise but at the same time an essential service for the citizenry. In general, if there is a good private option we should take that and keep the government out of business, even if they could do the job as efficiently as the private sector (something which I, like Cheerios, actually doubt).
Keeping government separate from business is one of the things that keeps capitalism separate from socialism.
The point of my post is that I think there is a way to do just this. I agree with the people who support the public option when they say that we should do something to help out the millions of people who cannot get health insurance. In fact, I think we should do more! I think we should cause health care to be as cheap as possible (Since the cost of health insurance is directly related to the cost of health care). I think we can do this though by reducing government interference instead of through additional government interference. My plan does not increase expenses for the government, it does not create additional laws and it will motivate health care companies to permanently solve diseases or produce cheap treatments.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-10-01 00:45:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cheerios (user info) at 2009-09-30 21:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't read this long post, but more people need to become aware of this important topic. Hopefully this gets onto most heated.
"Historically, government enterprise has been less efficient than the private sector."
This is a true statement. FilledWithHate, you're a sad little man in denial of the obvious truth: Anything government run CANNOT MAKE A PROFIT. This means their expenses are higher than their income. They are wasting money. Corruption, disappearing funds into the hands of bureaucrats. There is a simple explanation for this fact: they have no NEED to make a profit, when they need more money, they RAISE TAXES. This is why the private sector will ALWAYS be better than the government in absolutely everything, because if they don't make money, if they aren't keeping their customers happy, they go out of business. If the government's customers aren't happy, well....tough luck.
My point is, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Sure we have government run fire and police, post offices, roadways, but the more we rely on the government, the bigger (and more wasteful) they get, and the weaker and less free we as a people become. If you want to lower the costs of health care.... http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba669 and look at that! In recent news, the public option was rejected. Thank god.
-------------------
Cheerios, you got to be the stupidest fucker on this board. I read your link from a biased right wing think tank filled with 10 ridiculous opinion points sans any facts at all. Typical, you present opinion as fact, shite biased websites no one has heard of as representative of significant opinion, and you never address the counter point. Fact, overhead is cheaper with Medicare than the private sector. Fact, the growth on costs in Medicare have been less than the private sector. Private health care have ridiculous marketing costs and huge costs associated with billing and non-standardization of forms.
And the public option was only rejected by one Senate committee, that's it. It is in the House bill and in other Senate versions. You cannot even get that simple fact right.
By now, I am fairly convinced you are a pimply 13 year old who jacks off on his parents' laptop.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-09-30 21:55:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cheerios (user info) at 2009-09-30 21:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"This is a true statement. FilledWithHate, you're a sad little man in denial of the obvious truth: Anything government run CANNOT MAKE A PROFIT."
---
I'm not going to put a lot of effort in this. I have a report to write. Briefly, I don't know of many U.S. government agencies that are not non-profit, but TVA and the U.S. Postal Service come to mind. TVA has been very profitable over the years, even raising their top guy's salary to $2 million per year during back in December (this is still far less than comparable CEOs make in the private sector).
Also, believe it or not, the Postal Service has averaged about a billion dollar profit per year over the last five years.
I'm not a commie. I believe in efficiently regulated capitalism. Still, I'm going to keep calling "bullshit" when I see it.
Hmmm. The OPIC is profitable, too. I wonder what would happen if I looked into foreign government enterprises. Some other night, maybe.
Keep trying, though. This is fun.
Submitted by cheerios (user info) at 2009-09-30 21:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't read this long post, but more people need to become aware of this important topic. Hopefully this gets onto most heated.
"Historically, government enterprise has been less efficient than the private sector."
This is a true statement. FilledWithHate, you're a sad little man in denial of the obvious truth: Anything government run CANNOT MAKE A PROFIT. This means their expenses are higher than their income. They are wasting money. Corruption, disappearing funds into the hands of bureaucrats. There is a simple explanation for this fact: they have no NEED to make a profit, when they need more money, they RAISE TAXES. This is why the private sector will ALWAYS be better than the government in absolutely everything, because if they don't make money, if they aren't keeping their customers happy, they go out of business. If the government's customers aren't happy, well....tough luck.
My point is, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Sure we have government run fire and police, post offices, roadways, but the more we rely on the government, the bigger (and more wasteful) they get, and the weaker and less free we as a people become. If you want to lower the costs of health care.... http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba669 and look at that! In recent news, the public option was rejected. Thank god.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2009-09-30 20:50:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't have time to respond to each point made at the moment, but I wanted to say this while it was on my mind.
A couple people seem to take issue with my plan of just telling the patent office to decline treatments that don't actually cure disease. Currently, part of the criteria for granting a patent is whether or not an invention is "Useful".
http://www.answers.com/topic/patent-act-canada?cat=biz-fin
And "Useful" is judged just by the subjective opinion of the men and women who work in the patent office. We already rely on their subjective opinions to grant patents, why not let that go a little bit further?
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2009-09-30 16:02:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
interesting.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-30 15:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And this makes no sense whatsoever:
As I mentioned there would be no additional law written on the subject. There would be no stress or burden to define a cure for each disease. The men and women who work in the patent office and are currently responsible for granting medical patents are fully capable of understanding what treatments "cure" and which do not. It would not be a technical measure, it could rely on subjective human judgment.
The PO only works by law; you cannot change granting policy without changing the patent law, period.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-30 15:54:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you believe that the government will be able to supply health insurance at cost to nearly 40 million people while spending less than ten percent on its own bureaucracy and infrastructure? Historically, government enterprise has been less efficient than the private sector. If that trend continues with the public option then the government option, even if sold at cost, could wind up being more expensive than private insurance. Thus, we see that the government option either must be subsidised at tax payer expense or it won't be cheap enough to provide coverage for the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance
-------------------
I had to come back after a break, BUT, this point is absolutely wrong-"Historically, government enterprise has been less efficient than the private sector." WRONG, WRONG, WRONG-Overhead, mainly adminstrative costs for private healthcare is nearly 35%. For medicare and the VA, it is closer to 5%. For healthcare, at least, the government has been been more efficient, and this destroys your whole argument here.
In any case, both private healthcare and public options would be subsidized at public expense (I never denied that), but the expense of the subsidy would be great with private healthcare.
Submitted by therealgeddylee (user info) at 2009-09-30 14:02:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess I don't really understand paying for health care. In my country it's free.
--
Ever pay taxes? "Free" healthcare is essentially prepaid healthcare via taxes.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2009-09-30 04:43:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I stay away from this stuff, but couldn't find a hole in this.
////
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-30 00:21:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe the plan is basically providing public health care to people who cannot afford their own. Providing these people health care must be done at expense to the government, since they cannot afford it it must be paid for, at least to some extent by the government.
----------------------------
I think you're misunderstanding the function of a public option. The public option is not intended to provide health insurance for those in poverty. We already have government health care in place for those who cannot afford it. It's called Medicaid. Right now there are millions of people who are perfectly willing (and able) to pay for health insurance but do not have access (either because they are self-employed, cannot afford the exorbitant cost of an individual policy or because they've been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions). Those people wouldn't be GIVEN health care; they would PAY premiums to the government, just as they would to a traditional insurance company. The difference is that a corporate insurance company's first responsibility is to increase profit -- which they do by routinely refusing to pay claims, acts of rescission (accepting insurance premiums from a customer, sometimes for years, until a claim is made and then finding a pretext to cancel the policy) and by excluding those with pre-existing conditions. The government's responsibility will be to provide health care in the most efficient way possible.
In case you're not sure if that's possible (how often is the government efficient?) there are studies that show the government-run health care programs of Medicare and Medicaid spend only 2% of premiums on non-medical expenditures, compared to 5-40% of private insurance premiums going to non-medical costs.
http://tiny.cc/PjUjE
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2009-09-30 03:09:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm happy to seem ignorant when I ask; if you go to the A&E with ,say, a cut hand or an arrow through the arm - do you, yourself have to pay for that? Do you pay at the time? And if you don't is there some debt collection agency hounding you to pay? What if you don't pay? What happens?
I guess I don't really understand paying for health care. In my country it's free.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-30 02:01:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What the fuck are you going on about here? Are you referring to my reply?
---
No, I was referring to that questionable stain on the backseat of that old '72 Chevy Nova on blocks in your front yard.
(Jeez, you try to marshal your civilities and be nice to peep here.)
Read my earlier reply when you're sober.
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2009-09-30 01:47:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The rest of your reply, specifically the beginning of your third paragraph, seemed not only myopic but uninformed: I can see that you're a very intelligent person, which made it all the more surprising.
----------------
What the fuck are you going on about here? Are you referring to my reply? Myopic? Uninformed? My guess is, you're one of those people who use more than your share of health care and don't want to pay for it, and you don't like anyone pointing out how unfair that is to the rest of us. Commie.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-30 01:32:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with your second point, although I think it's a little ridiculous that you claim your proposed solution represents a reduction in government interference. You'd have to have a bunch of bureaucrats paid to do nothing but decide whether such-and-such a product cures disease or only treats symptoms. And you'd have to have a bunch of lawyers to defend each decision. And the lawyer's staff. And the bureaucrats' staff. It would end up being like the California Air Resources Board.
---------------------------
Once an ideal/idea transforms from bill into law, boom, there is no room for bureaucratic BS-ing/ litigation. Period.
The rest of your reply, specifically the beginning of your third paragraph, seemed not only myopic but uninformed: I can see that you're a very intelligent person, which made it all the more surprising.
Your ending was nice, and logical. So I'll leave you with a nice ranking—- my below reply—and good wishes.
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2009-09-30 01:06:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That is one long-winded post.
Your first point about the inelasticity of health-care demand ignores the fact that there is already competition among private health-care providers. Either that or you're assuming they're colluding. In addition, you ignore the fact that most people don't pay for their health care directly, they get it through their insurance. Which drives demand up beyond what it would be if buyers bought it directly for obvious reasons (you pay a fixed amount for health insurance regardless of how much you use). It's the health insurance companies which have a vested interest in keeping health care costs low--lower, at least, than what they take in on policies.
I agree with your second point, although I think it's a little ridiculous that you claim your proposed solution represents a reduction in government interference. You'd have to have a bunch of bureaucrats paid to do nothing but decide whether such-and-such a product cures disease or only treats symptoms. And you'd have to have a bunch of lawyers to defend each decision. And the lawyer's staff. And the bureaucrats' staff. It would end up being like the California Air Resources Board.
Frankly, the thing that galls me most about Obama's health care reform is not the public option (which he keeps saying he doesn't support), but the individual mandate. Everyone would be required to have insurance, and if your employer didn't provide it you'd have to go out and spend your own money on it, whether you wanted it or not. What kind of bullshit is that? I intentionally opt out of health insurance because the average person (and I'm at least that, health-wise) pays more for health insurance than they'd pay for the same services their health insurance provides. (That has to be true, or the insurance companies would be losing money.) So if you're in average health, and you buy health insurance, all you're doing is subsidizing the health care of someone else who's in lousy health. All those fat fucks sitting on their couches watching television and eating junk food. The obesity rate is at a record high because we basically reward people for being fat and lazy. When they come down with diabetes or heart disease--oh well! They don't pay any more for insurance than you do, but they'll be well taken care of. Thanks to all us healthy people.
My solution is simple: everyone receives a fixed amount of health care credits at birth. Everyone gets the same amount, and the credits have to last a lifetime. Once they run out, you have to pay your own way. If you're smart, you'll use them sparingly and take care of yourself. If you're not smart, you'll run out before you die. What could be fairer than that?
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-30 00:21:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe the plan is basically providing public health care to people who cannot afford their own. Providing these people health care must be done at expense to the government, since they cannot afford it it must be paid for, at least to some extent by the government.
----------------------------
I think you're misunderstanding the function of a public option. The public option is not intended to provide health insurance for those in poverty. We already have government health care in place for those who cannot afford it. It's called Medicaid. Right now there are millions of people who are perfectly willing (and able) to pay for health insurance but do not have access (either because they are self-employed, cannot afford the exorbitant cost of an individual policy or because they've been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions). Those people wouldn't be GIVEN health care; they would PAY premiums to the government, just as they would to a traditional insurance company. The difference is that a corporate insurance company's first responsibility is to increase profit -- which they do by routinely refusing to pay claims, acts of rescission (accepting insurance premiums from a customer, sometimes for years, until a claim is made and then finding a pretext to cancel the policy) and by excluding those with pre-existing conditions. The government's responsibility will be to provide health care in the most efficient way possible.
In case you're not sure if that's possible (how often is the government efficient?) there are studies that show the government-run health care programs of Medicare and Medicaid spend only 2% of premiums on non-medical expenditures, compared to 5-40% of private insurance premiums going to non-medical costs.
http://tiny.cc/PjUjE
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2009-09-29 21:27:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Cakes:
One other thing: the only thing that would change under Obama's plan is that MORE people would be buying drugs. (The quality of those drugs would not go down.)
-
Either you misunderstand Obama's plan or I do. If I am mistaken then please enlighten me.
I believe the plan is basically providing public health care to people who cannot afford their own. Providing these people health care must be done at expense to the government, since they cannot afford it it must be paid for, at least to some extent by the government.
There is at least one additional effect to Obama's plan then, namely an increase in the money the government spends on health care. As I mentioned in the post exactly how much of an increase is impossible to know since the plan is still vague.
There are 37 million Americans without Insurance who would presumably want to take part in the government plan. There are another 10 million uninsured non-citizens who may or may not qualify for the plan. In addition, some people who currently have insurance may want to switch to the government option. Check my figures here: http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
That was really a long way of saying that with the public option the government is going to wind up spending A LOT of money on health care (more than they do already) and as I mentioned this money will be going to treat symptoms of the problem without actually curing the problem itself.
-
AfricanSwallow
This idea is immoral as it involves the government (the people) restricting human (the people) innovation.
-
Actually, patents are a form of government restriction. They prohibit the natural desire of companies to rip off the products of their competitors By granting fewer patents we cause LESS government restriction, not more.
-
Berty
I agree with your assessment. We must cause the cost of treatment to go down and we can do that by encouraging health care companies to create either generic medicines, which as skrap mentioned can be purchased at Wal-Mart for 4 dollars a month. This is the difference, patented treatments cost enormous amounts of money while the generic is dirt cheap.
If we restrict patents to drugs that cure we will create more generic drugs and therefore more generic treatments.
-
FilledWithHate
In fact, the public options proposed are revenue neutral as they will not be given away but will require people who choose this to pay at cost for the public option
-
I think it is naive to expect that we will be able to insure 37 million or more people at no extra cost. If this is your genuine belief you may want to reconsider it.
If, as you claim, the public option will be funded by charging a fee to the people who use the system then we run back into the problem we currently have. Many people will not be able to afford health insurance AND the government will still be spending up to a fifth of its budget on health care.
In the private world health insurance has a profit margin of 9.1 percent.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp
Do you believe that the government will be able to supply health insurance at cost to nearly 40 million people while spending less than ten percent on its own bureaucracy and infrastructure? Historically, government enterprise has been less efficient than the private sector. If that trend continues with the public option then the government option, even if sold at cost, could wind up being more expensive than private insurance. Thus, we see that the government option either must be subsidised at tax payer expense or it won't be cheap enough to provide coverage for the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance.
_
To allow patents for only cures means you need a technical definition for a cure
-
As I mentioned there would be no additional law written on the subject. There would be no stress or burden to define a cure for each disease. The men and women who work in the patent office and are currently responsible for granting medical patents are fully capable of understanding what treatments "cure" and which do not. It would not be a technical measure, it could rely on subjective human judgment.
-
no company will invest in the substantial research involved in drug development
-
I believe that instead the incentive for research and development will change. Instead of researching treatments companies will research cures. Pharmaceutical companies currently spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research and they cannot patent advertisements. They spend so much on ads because it increases their profits. Presumably, even if companies could not get patents they would still spend money on development as it is the source of their income.
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 16:28:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2009-09-29 16:03:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 15:26:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am only referring to the public option here as one part of healthcare reform. Your first point is a general criticism of all healthcare reform. And really, your second point is the same thing as there will be a subsidy for the poor whether there is a public option or not. The question is-does the money from that subsidy go to private health insurance or to a public option. The latter would be cheaper, no doubt, but neither free. However, the public option, by itself, would be revenue neutral, period. Healthcare reform in general is not.
-----------------
In what sense would it be revenue neutral? You start out saying people protest because it will cost the govt money then say it will be "revenue neutral" to counter that.
I am for the public option if we are going to have subsidized and mandated healthcare, but don't pretend that it won't cost tax money.
===================================
As I said the subsidy aspect will cost money. And there will be a subsidy if HCR passes whether there is or is not a public option. I never said that it would not cost tax money, but if there is a public option, the cost would be less than without a public option. I was addressing the original criticism of the public option per se not the criticism of the HCR.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2009-09-29 16:03:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 15:26:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am only referring to the public option here as one part of healthcare reform. Your first point is a general criticism of all healthcare reform. And really, your second point is the same thing as there will be a subsidy for the poor whether there is a public option or not. The question is-does the money from that subsidy go to private health insurance or to a public option. The latter would be cheaper, no doubt, but neither free. However, the public option, by itself, would be revenue neutral, period. Healthcare reform in general is not.
-----------------
In what sense would it be revenue neutral? You start out saying people protest because it will cost the govt money then say it will be "revenue neutral" to counter that.
I am for the public option if we are going to have subsidized and mandated healthcare, but don't pretend that it won't cost tax money.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 15:26:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2009-09-29 14:08:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 13:46:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are making reasonable points, but your arguments are flawed for several reasons:
1) Your criticism of the public option is essentially that it will lead to increased government \------------------------
They are revenue neutral because they will take from medicade and pretend that "savings" can make up for it. If we are already wasting millions on it how is any new system not going to do the same thing.
As far as the "paying at cost" claim, how are poor people going to pay at cost? Unless the govt is goign to force doctors to work for free, hospitals to charge nothing forservices, and drug companies to give pills away they will not have enoguht money.
-------------------------------------
I am only referring to the public option here as one part of healthcare reform. Your first point is a general criticism of all healthcare reform. And really, your second point is the same thing as there will be a subsidy for the poor whether there is a public option or not. The question is-does the money from that subsidy go to private health insurance or to a public option. The latter would be cheaper, no doubt, but neither free. However, the public option, by itself, would be revenue neutral, period. Healthcare reform in general is not.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-09-29 14:37:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
man, are you yanks ever gonna stop running your mouth about healthcare?
you have more debates over healthcare than fucking war.
get your priorities straight and stfu already.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2009-09-29 14:22:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
wtf, im not readin all that
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2009-09-29 14:08:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 13:46:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are making reasonable points, but your arguments are flawed for several reasons:
1) Your criticism of the public option is essentially that it will lead to increased government spending on healthcare. In fact, the public options proposed are revenue neutral as they will not be given away but will require people who choose this to pay at cost for the public option. In essence, this is like an extension of Medicare except that you are paying for it rather than getting it free. Once you turn 67, it would then be free. In addition, this would reduce overall healthcare costs because government programs such as Medicare or the VA have lower overalll costs than private healthcare and their growth in costs have also been less than private healthcare.
------------------------
They are revenue neutral because they will take from medicade and pretend that "savings" can make up for it. If we are already wasting millions on it how is any new system not going to do the same thing.
As far as the "paying at cost" claim, how are poor people going to pay at cost? Unless the govt is goign to force doctors to work for free, hospitals to charge nothing forservices, and drug companies to give pills away they will not have enoguht money.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-09-29 13:46:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are making reasonable points, but your arguments are flawed for several reasons:
1) Your criticism of the public option is essentially that it will lead to increased government spending on healthcare. In fact, the public options proposed are revenue neutral as they will not be given away but will require people who choose this to pay at cost for the public option. In essence, this is like an extension of Medicare except that you are paying for it rather than getting it free. Once you turn 67, it would then be free. In addition, this would reduce overall healthcare costs because government programs such as Medicare or the VA have lower overalll costs than private healthcare and their growth in costs have also been less than private healthcare.
2) Your suggestion about the patent thing is never going to work. To allow patents for only cures means you need a technical definition for a cure. Does that mean it immediately reverses disease in 100% of patients? Do you realize no drug on the market does this? So where do you draw the line? Is it something like 5 year surival rates of > 50%? What about cures for serious but not life-threatening diseases? You'll need a separate definition for each and every disease. This is even more government parsing than full-blown socialized medicine when you get down to it. Finally, the end result would be that you get no treatments at all for dieases that are not "cures" because of no patent protection. Without some intellectual property aspect, no company will invest in the substantial research involved in drug development.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2009-09-29 10:20:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There's a lot of difference between the different healthcare systems of the world HellRazor. Also the logistical challenge of doing anything in the United States is staggering, let alone something as complex and momentous as a health care strategy.
You've got simple distance, the state boundaries with their own peculiar legislative framework's and buerocratic centres, you've got the drug and insurance companies who you're going to have to work through to have any chance of success.
It's like juggling bags of heroin and bundles of dollars whilst walking from one side of Baltimore to the other: very, very, very difficult, everyone will think you're a mentalist and you're likely to get mugged by a dickhead, but it isn't impossible.
Submitted by HellRazer (user info) at 2009-09-29 09:48:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You know, I really don't see where coming up with a HealthCare system is a problem. I mean, can't we just copy the system they use in the rest of the civilized world? What's up with all this debate and planning? Steal Canada's plan and call it a fucking day already.
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2009-09-29 09:39:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought that seven years after a drug was patented that other companies could make a generic brand?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2009-09-29 09:21:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's not really the point though is it Skrappy. I mean what you're talking about there is fine if he gets the sniffles or food poisoning or something. Thing is though that if he's in an accident or contracts a serious ailment then he's fucked.
He'll get a bill for something like $40,000 and he's fucked. They'll take his house, his car, he'll be bankrupt. Even if he is able to work out some repayment plan that doesn't result in him losing his home then he'll be financially crippled for years and years.
That is really the problem with American healthcare as it currently stands.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-09-29 08:56:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Had a guest at my house over the weekend who is a contract IT guy at a large midwestern US Pharmaceutical company. He offered up a perspective on healthcare reform I found interesting; that being the views of someone without employer-supported healthcare insurance or Medicare or Medicaid, who also does not simply wait until he's ill and heads for the Emergency Room. He actually pays for a visit to the doctor and for his tests and prescriptions himself, from his paycheck.
Part 1 if this is the 'contrat IT guy'. His actual employer doesn't offer healthcare insurance. He's too young and healthy and too employed to be on Medicare or Medicaid, which are the already-established government-supplied health insurance plans (did some of you forget that we already have government-supplied healthcare insurance plans?). He checks regularly, and to provide a healthcare plan that would be what he considers 'reasonable' would cost him about $800/month in premiums. He makes about the average income in the US, and feels that he cannot afford those premiums along with his mortgage (about the same cost) and car payments. So what he does is this: he tells his doctors that he's paying on his own, and they will universally cut their charges, sometimes by 50%. If he needs x-rays or tests, he shops around and tells the labs the same thing, and again the costs are substantially reduced. He asks that his prescriptions be written for meds for which there is a generic equivalent, and Wal-Mart will fill that generic prescription for $4 a month. He is an aware and concientious healthcare consumer, as can everyone be. Take it upon yourself to be one, and your healthcare costs wil decrease too.
Part 2 of this is the 'at a large midwestern US Pharmaceutical company'. That company hired a promenant local Dem to be their liason to Washington and support their position wrt healthcare reform. That position is basically 'We are a private, for-profit company producing medicines to treat disease and improve the health of the people. Government restrictions on our ability to recoup the costs of developing these medicines will not simply make the medicines cheaper, it will limit or prevent our ability to research new treatments.' Note that they hired a Dem to say this, for the obvious reasons.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2009-09-29 05:23:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Best way to deal with this is with local arenas where patients of different ailment classes (obviously they'd have to pay for their own diagnosis) would compete in a series of challenges and the top winners would be granted access to healthcare.
Terminal patients could fight to the death in gladitorial combat. Parapalegics would play chess. Burn victims could have a rap battle.
This way not only would the central American principle of "the strong survive, fuck everybody else" endure but it would also dispell the stigma surrounding illness generally. Ghetto kids will activly start cutting off their own legs in order to compete in the 1 legged dance off and win massive sponsorship deals.
Submitted by AfricanSwallow (user info) at 2009-09-29 03:44:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I was with you until you brought in the patent idea. This idea is immoral as it involves the government (the people) restricting human (the people) innovation.
I agree that right now it is more profitable for drug companies to treat the symptom than to cure the illness. In a purely competitive market, these companies would try to innovate by creating better and better treatments until they create the ultimate treatment, the cure. The problem is the drug market is not a free market, it is an oligopoly. Government restrictions cause high barriers to entry making it almost impossible for new companies to form. (The new ones are mostly people who bailed from their existing pharma).
The strongest thing about our current drug market is its regulations. This is also its biggest problem. Its supposed to keep us safe, by preventing the amateur chemist from selling us drugs he made in his bathtub. At the same time it prevents the pharmacist, the chemist, and business grad who put in their time and graduated at the top of their class from forming their own pharmacy and selling their new drug idea. Instead the have to go through the system and may lose their original purpose and intensity before they get another opportunity.
My proposal is to remove all government imposed regulations. This sounds radical but if insurance companies were smart they would impose their own regulations. Now free from government ties and bureaucracy they could do this by their own rules and with much greater efficiency. At the same time they are kept in check by their own customers. Any carelessness and people start to get hurt, the customers see this and jump ship to a better insurance company. Also less work to start your own insurance company so there will be more to chose from and better rates.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-29 02:56:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
One other thing: the only thing that would change under Obama's plan is that MORE people would be buying drugs. (The quality of those drugs would not go down.)
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-29 02:46:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I shouldn't have sped-read this whilst trying to feed a baby-- you fooled me, there are some very legitimate ideas here. The president's package can and hopefully will work, the drug companies are completely, absolutely out of control-- yeah I saw your watered-down argument. That's all.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-29 02:34:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by THERAPlST (user info) at 2009-09-29 02:25:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Use the enter key. please.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-29 02:25:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
After Swamp Donkey's post this took some readjusting.
I'll leave the arguing to you all, I stated my case for Healh Care. But, and this is something that bugs the fuck outta me, WHY plan another fuckin mission to the moon --been there (arguably, to some) -- or even Mars. BOTH DEAD ROCKS! So we find some microscopoic life forms, who gives a shit when that would take trillions of dollars that hungry babies and sick parents would never get to use?
I love space, I'd fucking atrophy away on a holo-deck, but lets keep it on TV until we solve the probs down here first.
Ms Cakes.