Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Paying the healthcare costs of obesity

Options
1171820222329

Replies

  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
    This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
  • ogtmama
    ogtmama Posts: 1,403 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    The Hippocratic oath might take issue with your viewpoint. Eta: Doctors, by the nature of their profession do have a special responsibility to the community they serve.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    The Hippocratic oath might take issue with your viewpoint. Eta: Doctors, by the nature of their profession do have a special responsibility to the community they serve.

    Given that 100% of modern doctors have already broken it by year two (overtreatment), I think we can throw that relic out with the bathwater, personally.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?
  • lessismore130
    lessismore130 Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.

    And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.

    I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.

    A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?

    1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
    2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.

    And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.

    I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.

    A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.

    Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
  • lessismore130
    lessismore130 Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    seska422 wrote: »
    Civilized countries have socialized healthcare, just like they have socialized education and other things-that-everyone-needs as part of their overall tax base. Just like we educate the academic outliers who are extremely expensive to educate, there are medical outliers who will be expensive to treat. It's the old 80-20 rule.

    Injuries from exercise are hugely expensive and getting more so, just like obesity costs. Healthy people who exercise may end up costing more over a lifetime than obese people who die early. Plus, obese people generally don't need to be rescued by helicopter ambulances when they get hurt in the wilderness.

    The US just needs to bite the bullet and move into the 21st century. Cut out the insurance middleman and all of the medical lobbying to lawmakers and direct advertising to patients. We already have a framework with Medicare that can be expanded to everyone and then tweaked.

    Not only Medicare, but add in Medicaid, ACA, Tricare and subsidized state insurance for kids and a large part of the population is already covered by government insurance.

    Ideally, health care would be affordable and we could all bootstrap our way to health without needing insurance, but since that's never gonna happen, we need a universal system to treat all sections of our population.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?

    1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
    2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)

    Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    It's a basic safety net. If you think people having to pay for stuff through taxes (as we do) means we have no rights, well, we disagree. I don't think having to pay for federally-subsidized health care (which I already do) is much different than having to pay for the variety of other things I have to pay for through my taxes.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    the simple solution to the cost problem is to allow companies to compete across state lines. In Florida, I have two choices - Blue Cross Blue Shield or United...if I could shop my business health care policy around like I do other services, then I am sure that I could bring down the cost on my own without government involvement.

    I could support that. I wonder who'd be against that, though.

    well apparently the loons in congress that would not even consider it, even though it was brought up as an amendment to the ACA. And it really needs to be renamed "The un-affordable and zero choice care act" but I guess that is not as catchy..
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    I never understood the rational that says health care is a human right...Liberty, Life, and property yes, but health care, sorry that one does not fly with me and never will.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.

    And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.

    I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.

    A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.

    that is great, then take 10% of your yearly income and send it to the IRS or HHS; I should have the same right to not have to subsidize person x's health care.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?

    Lots of people won't grant a "right" beyond "free from interference by the government" (although we go beyond that in a variety of ways -- right to an attorney, for example). I think there are affirmative rights that one can't sue the government for, but that we ought to recognize as a society and provide for, and I'm comfortable in invoking the "right" term to cover those, although legally of course they are different from Constitutional rights. Gallowmere apparently disagrees.

    So in that sense clean water is not a right (except that if someone dirties YOUR water you have a common law right of action). (I'd say it's a human right and beyond that a right under our laws, specifically the Clean Water Act.)
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.

    And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.

    I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.

    A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.

    if you are right then the ACA should have lowered health care costs for people, and it has not.

    and it is not "cheaper" if you increase taxes on a certain group of people to then pay for others health care.

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Options
    There are a lot of unknowns out there when it comes to affordable health care in the USA. Some doctors are starting to focus on "private pay/self pay" only patients it seems.

    theselfpaypatient.com/
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?

    1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
    2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)

    Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?

    So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.
  • ogtmama
    ogtmama Posts: 1,403 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    The Hippocratic oath might take issue with your viewpoint. Eta: Doctors, by the nature of their profession do have a special responsibility to the community they serve.

    Given that 100% of modern doctors have already broken it by year two (overtreatment), I think we can throw that relic out with the bathwater, personally.

    I respectfully disagree with your analysis.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.

    I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).

    I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.

    I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.

    "Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.

    You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.

    I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.

    Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?

    Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).
    It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.

    So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.

    That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.

    We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.

    And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo
    .

    but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????

    I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).

    To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
    It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.

    I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?

    1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
    2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)

    Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?

    So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.

    Aquafers are not necessarily flowing, they can be contained. It's why I asked part (b)