WatchThe government’s demand that everyone has health insurance is socialism. Why can’t someone be self insured? Don’t we own our own body? If someone makes a wrong calculation and doesn’t have the available funds to cover an operation, that is their own fault. If they die, that has nothing to do with the Federal government. Likewise, if someone doesn’t plan to consume healthcare for the next 30 years, why are they forced to pay? I thought capitalism was that people chose what they consumed from their own free will and assumed the impending consequences without bailouts.
The problem is that health insurance insulates individuals from the price of the healthcare services. This causes people to over consume since they are not realizing the true costs. Even worse, insurance provides its own demand through moral hazard. If people were not insulated from the costs of abusing their bodies, they would be in much better shape. Tying people’s own actions to their consequences will force individuals to realize and minimize the costs they are ensuing. If people had to pay out of pocket for the reckless activities they pursue, they might not have done the stupid actions in the first place, thus reducing healthcare demand.
Collective responsibility holds nobody accountable! Everyone acting rationally will keep draining collective funds. This is called the “tragedy of the commons”. This is one of the problems that individual ownership eliminates. Each individual needs to own their own bodies and the costs associated with them. If not, everyone will have an incentive to over consume healthcare and under exercise. Wow, this is exactly what is happening! Why would someone do hard work; exercise and eat healthy when they can get healthcare for “free” or at a minimal marginal cost?
If health insurance was eliminated it would put the costs of peoples actions back on themselves and would restore capitalism. Not only that, competition would be restored to the healthcare industry and force individuals to make rational decisions on the necessitation of operations or not. Is a knee surgery worth $20,000? No, well then people will wait until prices come down. Doctors have bills too. If people stop consuming their services, market forces will bring prices back down to reality. US doctor’s incomes are over twice the average of industrialized nations, and it’s not because they provide better service. Allow doctor immigration to increase the supply to drive down prices. No, the AMA would never allow competition like manufacturing has, that’s unfair!
The government’s solution is the easy short term route; give everyone insurance regardless if they pay. This will only exacerbate the problems. Government never makes the difficult decisions that will solve long term problems when all the politicians won’t be in office to get credit for it. Plus, why would they reduce their own demand by fixing social problems. Government actually has an incentive to enact reckless policy to encourage future demand, WOW. Eliminating all forms of health insurance will be difficult in the short run, maybe 2 or 3 years. But after that, there will be 100 years of reasonable cost, life saving services provided to millions of people. What is the long term, utilitarian decision here? I think it’s a pretty easy decision.
Government provided insurance is a band-aid fix that will in the long run be impossible to reverse, much like all other government entities. It is only one direction, welcome to “The Road to Serfdom”!
Follow
Befriend (9)
184 threads
1,660 comments
Premium
Somalia already implements the above solution.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
106 comments
San Jose, CA
End world hunger. Everyone must pay for buffets. We don't care if you eat less than the $20 cover charge. It will benefit the ones that eat more than the $20 cover charge.
That's how I see this healthcare reform.
Follow
Befriend (23)
56 threads
4,081 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
bighorse says
that is because you have no idea what you are talking about...similar to the original poster.
TODAY if anyone comes into an emergency room, they get treated. Whether they have insurance or not. whether they can afford it or not.
WE ALL PAY IN TERMS OF HIGHER CHARGES TO COVER THEIR COSTS.
The new insurance is actually a big step towards more individual responsibility and was originated in a conservative think tank. It only became socialism because the republicants needed to disavow it, when Obama took it on, and successfully brainwashed weak thinkers as this thread shows.
Follow
Befriend (13)
106 threads
3,863 comments
Insurance has both good and bad. It does allow for everyone to receive higher quality healthcare through cost sharing. And do remember, insurance pays out negotiated fees based on a certain database name of which I can't remember.
This system is muddy, plenty of businesses simply hire illegals and push healthcare costs onto everyone else by simply dropping these employees off at ER's. But we should have simply passed a law that illegals do not get treatment, this would have fixed that issue right off the bat.
I think another problem with Obamacare is that it tries to cover everything. They should have just covered catastrophic stuff via public option. Would have made other insurance really cheap and affordable since it would remove all those multi-million end of life claims out of the picture.
Follow
Befriend (1)
1 threads
284 comments
I think EconPete is touching on the subject that Murray Rothbard was writing about - Healthcare insurance is an OXYMORON. It simply can't work.
Some insurances are proper and can work. For example - fire insurance. You agree with an insurance company on the fixed amount of payoff in case your house burns down.
With healthcare "insurance" - nothing is set, and supply can be manipulated - that is doctor can write up whatever procedures he performed, and patient doesn't care.
The proper thing is to let everyone pay out of their pocket, and maybe have insurance for catastrophic events (like triple bypass surgery).
For the poor - there is charity, there are discounts, and (though I am not advocating) "health" stamps can be introduced.
Follow
Befriend (1)
297 threads
5,272 comments
Insurance companies are middle men that add nothing to healthcare.
Do you want to know the true cost of health care?
It's your out of pocket costs. Insurance companies are just parasites that leach on and give you false security that if you get sick or a catastrophic illness you'll be covered. But in reality if you get sick you'll pay for your medicine, your hospital stay, your doctor's fee. This isn't like it was in the 80's when I was kid, when the majority that had employer health insurance were afforded to say "Full Medical".
But make no mistake if you get a catastrophic ailment, your finances are Toast. You could very well end up bankrupt, and depending on the seriousness of the ailment. You'll eventually lose your job, lose your coverage, miss plenty of bills, end up bankrupt, foreclosed and ultimately a ward of the State's and federal welfare system.
I laugh at every sucker paying their monthly premium thinking they are covered. HA!
Follow
Befriend (28)
182 threads
4,606 comments
Premium
There is no reason a cancer victim can't just put up an ad in the laundromat for bids on treatment by oncologists.
Follow
Befriend (9)
434 threads
4,251 comments
Baltimore, MD
FortWayne says
I agree with the part about it should have just covered catastrophic stuff, but if you price that just that it's not really cheap any more. It's just less expensive.
Follow
Befriend (1)
297 threads
5,272 comments
MRI machines should be manufactured by Grand Prix by now sold at Walgreen's behind the counter for $39.99 next to the Colby $9.99 Blueray players.
Follow
Befriend (9)
434 threads
4,251 comments
Baltimore, MD
Rant ripped off from another messageboard, but completely true, except aboput the lowball figure on the private physician charge:
The medical industry is all about the MONEY; we pay a hell of a lot more than others because when a person's health is on the line hospitals behave like blood sucking leeches. And we are supposed to thank them profusely for getting well when they don't screw up. I visited SF General's Emergency. I was charged $250 for nurse's opinion which was, "I don't know". That took all of 5 minutes after a three hour wait. I was given a second opinion for anothe $250 even though I was told that it was same consultation, the second opinion was that I shouldn't be concerned, it was simply water in my knee. Grand total $500. Could have seen a private physician for $45 - $75. They refused to tell me what the costs of the consult might be. I asked 5 times prior to being seen.
Follow
Befriend (9)
434 threads
4,251 comments
Baltimore, MD
robertoaribas says
I'm more inclined to think that we pay higher costs to cover their malpractice insurance costs and bloated salaries.
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
Health insurance really does not make much sense. Every person is bound to have some health issues in his life. How can we have something that insures against a certainty?
I am pro-market and I believe that sidewalks should be privatized. However, I support the idea of universal healthcare as much as the idea of a public military. Accidents and diseases are really some enemies.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
575 comments
zzyzzx says
Thanks for the honesty. For all intensive purposes, ask yourself this one question, if doctors weren't guaranteed near full employment at six figures, what percent of them would choose medical school over let's say teaching, engineering, or business?
I recall a bunch of stupid emergency room visits of $500 to $2K, for stupid things like catching a cold to getting a few stitches for gashes.
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
That said, most doctors entered the field not just for money. There are better/easier ways to make more money. Doctors are pretty much limited to a 6-figure salary.
But I don't know what percentage of doctors picked medicine purely because of parental pressure.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
575 comments
Peter P says
But is this really true? If your greatest talent is in getting A-'s in biology or a 30 MCAT, does that mean that you'll be successful in business, actuary, engineering, trading, or some other field?
I think the difference between medicine and most other fields is that for most occupations, book learning doesn't cut the mustard. During the telecom/IT bust, many folks with high GPAs from liberal arts to basic sciences to applied sciences lost their jobs at places like Lucent, Global Crossing, L3, etc. True, some re-trained and found work elsewhere, but were they all able to stay marketable and earn a "six figure" salary wherever they went? Likewise, can a typical A- student manage a futures/forex deal book for a large portfolio?
And realize, premeds always try to take courses, with the highest distribution of A's. I've seldom seen 'em in Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, or even Organic Chem for Majors (or Engineering Honors/Chem Engin).
I think where doctors could succeed easily may be in Patent Agent work, where passing exams makes your career for the most part. I would have said Actuary, ten years ago, but today, a lot of entry level work there is offshored.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
29 comments
ATK's website
but now-a-days good PPO plans don't even fully cost treatments, diagnosis anymore... you are paying more and getting less.
Follow
Befriend
13 threads
834 comments
Dublin, CA
Peter P says
In the "tiger" and jewish community, my guess would be at least 65%.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
575 comments
ATK says
Out of pocket expenses keep going up, despite coverage.
At some point in time, medical tourism to Cuba, Costa Rica, or Thailand may be the only way to get adequate treatment for a reasonable cost.
Follow
Befriend
10 comments
I once met someone who's allergies were cured.
No antihistamines. No decongestants. No nasal sprays. No steroids. No chronic treatment.
She had to pay out of pocket for the treatment.
It took 6 months for the treatment to be complete. There were a lot of difficult days in the process.
Her provider would see her and reassure her through this process.
The treatment was individualized. There was no randomized controlled trial published in a peer-reviewed journal that supported her treatment remedy.
Her provider asked her about her eating habits, her bowel movements, her quality of sleep, her hair, her menstrual cycle, and her libido. She was a little off-put in the beginning.
Then she was cured. And years later she no longer had allergies.
And her provider wasn't an MD. Insurance didn't cover the care. There was no state funding for treatment. It wasn't even recognized as a legitimate form of care.
Follow
Befriend
10 comments
HRHMedia says
Before digital imaging, CT scans cost the hospital (or imaging company) $1000 per scan (due to the costs of printing, the bulb life, the maintenance and upkeep of the machine, etc).
In addition, there was a fixed cost of purchasing the scanner which had to be amortized and a hourly cost of having dedicated, trained personal working with the machine.
Since digital imaging, the printing costs have come down, but the overall cost to the institution have not decreased dramatically.
I have no idea what a CT scan "should" cost. Or what Aspirin "should" cost.
But, it's not so simple that everyone on the supply chain is gouging the end consumer. The hospital's primary interest is profit margin. So, it will try to reduce upfront costs and increase reimbursement. But, the hospital does not own a vertical supply chain. Everyone along the way can sniff a profit if there is one.
As a general rule, health care agencies have an overall 5% profit margin. They can offer a low profit margin service if another high profit margin service offsets that cost.
For example, hospitals are reimbursed poorly for overnight stays for Medicaid patients. Since many are required to accept Medicaid patients, they offset this cost with a higher cost somewhere else. Maybe that's why aspirin cost you $25.
Now regardless of costs. What the consumer has to ask is "was all of this necessary AND to my benefit." The addiction is consumption, but it is not the cure.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
Gogogan says
As far as I know, the great majority of hospitals are non-profit.
Follow
Befriend (1)
2 threads
343 comments
Sunnyvale, CA
EconPete says
The government giving us all Medicare would be socialism. The government requiring us to all purchase private for-profit company's insurance products is corporatism.
Because the people paying for health care must pick up the tab in that case thanks to The Great Liberal Ronald Reagan who signed EMTALA requiring hospitals to treat people for life and/or limb threatening conditions regardless of ability to pay .
In capitalist systems there are market alternatives which leverage lower costs of materials and labor to provide better prices. For example, for minor problems you might pay a nurse $25 for 15 minutes of his time and leave with a prescription.
The astute reader will note that's not possible - only doctors are allowed to write prescriptions.
This is because we don't have capitalist health care - we have corporatist health care, where the doctor's union (aka the AMA) has gotten laws passed so that only those who've cleared its high bar to entry (pre-med, med-school, internship, and residency) can practice medicine with the resulting cost of entry and scarcity producing high prices.
Follow
Befriend
10 comments
bdrasin says
Somewhat correct.
A non-profit cannot carry a profit at the end of the fiscal year. All their income must be divested.
This does not mean that the organization does not care about profit margins.
For example:
Many states have health care insurers which are also health care providers.
The organization will create a for-profit insurer and a non-profit hospital.
The hospital will apply for tax-exemption.
The insurer will be for-profit, publicly or privately sell shares and increase book value to arrange for more favorable bond auctions.
Without the profit margin, the organization would go out of business. A profit margin is required.
The tax exemption is the major perk of having a non-profit hospital.
But, it comes at a significant financial risk. If the hospital is in the red the following year and did not have a for-profit institution backing it, it would fail.
So, the for-profit institution will backstop the non-profit institution to make certain that the organization can survive (by having cash in reserve).
This is a legal loophole, but very well known and commonly used.
Follow
Befriend (9)
434 threads
4,251 comments
Baltimore, MD
Rin says
Very few.