patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

An insurance is a socialist systems whereby the people who are healthy pay for the rest - until they are sick.

Not at all. Insurance is a free market phenomenon, just like one would buy home insurance, life insurance and portfolio insurance.

Medical insurance mandated by government to include events that are guaranteed to happen (such as contraceptive pills) is indeed socialism, just like welfare paying out to allegedly intended recipients 13 cents for every dollar forcibly collected for that purpose; the other 87 cents of every dollar are lost in the bureaucracy. Obamacare, single-payer and the government enforced supply restriction on who can deliver medical service are all ways of sky-rocketing the medical bill.

If the government mandated "Meal Insurance," that each person has to buy into a government (single-payer) meal plan, we'd all be starving, just like everywhere it was tried: in the first year after Mayflower landing in Plymouth Colony (more than half the initial population starved to death in the first year as a result of that communist experiment), and in numerous socialist countries in the 20th century with a total starvation death toll of over 100 million!

Reality says

Not at all. Insurance is a free market phenomenon, just like one would buy home insurance, life insurance and portfolio insurance.

Medical insurance mandated by government to include events that are guaranteed to happen (such as contraceptive pills) is indeed socialism, just like welfare paying out to allegedly intended recipients 13 cents for every dollar forcibly collected for that purpose; the rest is lost in the bureaucracy. Obamacare, single-payer and the government enforced supply restriction on who can deliver medical service are all ways of sky-rocketing the medical bill.

Agreed. That's what made it so heinously expensive, the inclusion of guaranteed events, it had to fail. It's like forcing the fire insurance to pay for a pre-planned little routine fire at the house every week.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

The system in which you pay the LESS for other people, is in fact when these other people are "forced" to buy insurance.

I agree. The Right is wrong about the mandate. Everyone must be forced to have catastrophic insurance at least, or we need to turn people away at the ER.

HowdyThere says

But providing universal coverage for 'luxury' health care doesn't. While I tend to be liberal on social issues, I'm solidly conservative fiscally, and providing deluxe coverage is financial suicide for a nation.

Apparently you've never dealt with a single payer system called Medicare or Medicaid and the deluxe coverage that's provided.

HowdyThere says

There are at least two ways to look at Capitalism in relation to health care.

One way is the classic concept, where winners win and losers lose. Ideal for many aspects of society. If you can't afford a car, you don't get a car. Take public transit. If a business is inefficient, it should fail to make room for a better competitor. For health care, if you can afford great health care, you can have every need met. If you are in the middle, basic needs will be met, but worse conditions will mean death. Losers have the privilege of dying outside a hospital.

The second is a national Capitalistic competitiveness model. In order for a nation to be competitive, it needs a healthy and mobile workforce. Universal coverage is more oriented towards preventative medicine, which is very effective. Keeps workers at work. With universal coverage, workers can move from employer to employer without health insurance being a factor. More importantly, workers can become entrepreneur...

Isn't Medicare and Medicaid representative of your second option?

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/North-Texas-teacher-dies-after-getting-the-flu-12555825.php

North Texas teacher dies after getting the flu

Heather Holland, a second-grade teacher at Ikard Elementary School with the Weatherford Independent School District died over the weekend, the Weatherford Democrat reports. Holland got sick about a week ago and took medication, but delayed picking up the prescription due to the $116 copay, according to the newspaper.

If she were on welfare, there would have been no co-pay.

zzyzzx says

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/North-Texas-teacher-dies-after-getting-the-flu-12555825.php

North Texas teacher dies after getting the flu

Heather Holland, a second-grade teacher at Ikard Elementary School with the Weatherford Independent School District died over the weekend, the Weatherford Democrat reports. Holland got sick about a week ago and took medication, but delayed picking up the prescription due to the $116 copay, according to the newspaper.

If she were on welfare, there would have been no co-pay.

I saw a post about this on Facebook. One of he co-workers commented on her death and said that she actually had the money to afford the "Therma Flu" or whatever the medication was called but thought it was a rip off and decided to not buy it. It's not like she was dead broke, and penniless. She made $80,000 a year.

If you let everyone have access to Drs. then people might have to wait several weeks to have elective surgery.

We cannot have that.

anon_8f378 says

If you let everyone have access to Drs. then people might have to wait several weeks to have elective surgery.

We cannot have that.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Ideally, different levels of services for what you pay would be the ideal solution
In Europe, public system is pretty good with long wait lines. You pay private insurance and you get faster access to doctors, better hospital rooms, etc. Often the same doctors visit in both systems.

anon_10773 says

In Europe, public system is pretty good with long wait lines.

It's not good because it's stealing from Peter to pay Paul. We do not want the government involved in Health Care. It's frightening to think people would trust the same entity that runs USPS, or the DMV to run our health care system.

No thank you.

Goran_K says

It's not like she was dead broke, and penniless. She made $80,000 a year.

I could be misreading your comment but @zzyyzzx I believe is pointing out the copay. There's a high likelihood she would have a much cheaper co-pay if more segments of the population pulled their weight when it comes to paying for health related services. It should be $20 instead of $116, if even that much. She could afford it either way of course so you are definitely correct, kind of stupid on her end not to just get the meds.

The reality is no American should be paying $116 for basic flu meds and others not paying a dime to get the same meds. That's nuts.

Goran_K says

It's frightening to think people would trust the same entity that runs USPS, or the DMV to run our health care system.

It's frightening to me that people want these guys running our health care system:

/post/1313761/2018-02-12-stunning-admission-by-aetna-may-reshape-insurance-industry

WookieMan says

I could be misreading your comment but @zzyyzzx I believe is pointing out the copay. There's a high likelihood she would have a much cheaper co-pay if more segments of the population pulled their weight when it comes to paying for health related services. It should be $20 instead of $116, if even that much. She could afford it either way of course so you are definitely correct, kind of stupid on her end not to just get the meds.

The reality is no American should be paying $116 for basic flu meds and others not paying a dime to get the same meds. That's nuts.

Sure, you could argue that her co-pay was high but IMO not out of the ball park ridiculous, especially for someone in her income bracket.

But saying it "should be this price" is ignoring the reality of her insurance plan. Did she not agree to that insurance plan when she took the job? Did she not have the choice to not take that job but a job with a better insurance plan?

The reason she died wasn't because of a high co-pay, the reason she died was because she was too cheap to pay the co-pay for an insurance plan she agreed to as compensation for her job, so she decided to "tough it out".

Bad mistake. It cost this woman her life.

Goran_K says

But saying it "should be this price" is ignoring the reality of her insurance plan. Did she not agree to that insurance plan when she took the job? Did she not have the choice to not take that job but a job with a better insurance plan?

The reason she died wasn't because of a high co-pay, the reason she died was because she was too cheap to pay the co-pay for an insurance plan she agreed to as compensation for her job, so she decided to "tough it out".

Bad mistake. It cost this woman her life.

Does this mean there was a Personal Responsibility element to this story, and the government wouldn't run in to save her from her own mistakes?

Sniper says

Does this mean there was a Personal Responsibility element to this story, and the government wouldn't run in to save her from her own mistakes?

A foreign concept these days.

Goran_K says

Isn't Medicare and Medicaid representative of your second option?

No. Under a national Capitalistic competitiveness model everyone is covered. Medicare and Medicaid mostly covers people who aren't productive. In order to be competitive you need to cover productive people, so medical coverage doesn't limit their employment/entrepreneurial choices. From a competitive standpoint, the current system is a failure because it only supports non-producers. A universal coverage system has the advantage of encouraging entrepreneurial behavior and employee movement, while being socially acceptable because it also covers those who would otherwise die outside the emergency room door.

Best of both worlds.

HowdyThere says

Medicare and Medicaid mostly covers people who aren't productive. In order to be competitive you need to cover productive people, so medical coverage doesn't limit their employment/entrepreneurial choices. From a competitive standpoint, the current system is a failure because it only supports non-producers.

That's actually not correct. With the passing of Obamacare, close to 3/4 of enrollees in the exchanges were put into Medicaid, not because they were non-productive, but because they were low income. This included many YOUNG minimum wage workers and many part time workers.

Plus, there are many people on Medicare who are also still working regularly and full time. Medicare isn't just for retired workers.

Are these people considered non-producers?


HowdyThere says

while being socially acceptable because it also covers those who would otherwise die outside the emergency room door.

That's not accurate either. Hospitals have a legal responsibility to treat anyone who comes in with life threatening conditions, there is no bearing if they have insurance or not.

HowdyThere says

No. Under a national Capitalistic competitiveness model everyone is covered. Medicare and Medicaid mostly covers people who aren't productive. In order to be competitive you need to cover productive people, so medical coverage doesn't limit their employment/entrepreneurial choices. From a competitive standpoint, the current system is a failure because it only supports non-producers. A universal coverage system has the advantage of encouraging entrepreneurial behavior and employee movement, while being socially acceptable because it also covers those who would otherwise die outside the emergency room door.

Best of both worlds.

So how does your system solve the "problem" of unproductive people?