Has anyone seen these polls?

[Bond]

It is very difficult to have a frank and honest discussion about health care if the scope of the discussion is not narrowed. Also, we have covered a lot of these same points ad nauseam in previous threads.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

—Ayn Rand

[Vampyr]

I've been reading some of the arguments in another thread. The biggest negative I see is the supposed cost of switching to a public option for health care.

But as I stated before...America spends over $500 more per person on health care than other countries with a public option. Administrative costs for our health care are exorbitantly high compared to universal care systems.

I can't help but to think in the long run it would make sense financially to switch to a public option.

Another argument is that the government has traditionally messed up health care. What sort of reasoning is that? If other governments can do it, so can we.

Also, about the Republican plan: Yes, those are all great ideas. But they aren't a real plan for health care. They are auxiliary options which can be implemented alongside public health care.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I've been reading some of the arguments in another thread. The biggest negative I see is the supposed cost of switching to a public option for health care.

But as I stated before...America spends over $500 more per person on health care than other countries with a public option. Administrative costs for our health care are exorbitantly high compared to universal care systems.

I've already addressed the high-cost issue of health care in a previous thread. The exorbenate cost of our health services is, in fact, due to excessive government intervention. Please see my below quoted post:

" 1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

Allow me to first use a few relevant and important statistical charts:



This chart depicts health care expenditures as percent of GDP and per capita. As you can see health care expenditures have nearly tripled as a percent of GDP since the 1960s, as well as the cost per capita of health care. This begs the question: what has lead to this enormous increase in the cost of health care?



This chart depicts average annual CPI change (%) by component. Once again we see the rise in medical care significantly outpacing the change of all other items. And, again, this begs the question, why?

For the answer to this question, I harkon back to my original point, that the rapid (and recent) rise in health care costs is primarily due to the advent of insurance/HMO/PPO companies, which were mandated by, and heavily regulated, by the government. In fact, the health insurance industry is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in our country.

For an exact explanation of what HMO/PPO companies are and how they function, I would recommend outside sources, as I don’t want to go into too much detail concerning them. Suffice to say, they are a middle man, between you and your doctor. Middle men naturally raise the price of any good, as they have raised the price of health care.

Let’s consult one more chart, which depicts who is paying for health care costs:



Here again we see a stark contrast from the 1960s to present day. During the 1960s, the majority of health care was paid by out-of-pocket, and a small fraction was paid by the federal government. Present day, only a small fraction is paid by out-of-pocket, and payments by the federal government have quadrupled. I would, again, correlate this back to the rise of the HMO/PPO, as mandated by the federal government.

(These charts are derived from numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)"


Also, this essay by Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute briefly summarizes the government's role in driving up the cost of health care: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...s_iv_ctrl=2401

Another argument is that the government has traditionally messed up health care. What sort of reasoning is that? If other governments can do it, so can we.

Have you recently looked at France's marginal income tax rate? It is drastically higher than ours. That is why they are able to afford and subsidize their hybrid healthcare system. The French tax at least 40% of ones earnings if they earn above the equivalent of 95,000 dollars per year (Source: http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002E0A/$FILE/JT00187984.PDF).

[Professor S]

Uh oh, that article dares to state that healthcare isn't a "right". I think 1/2 the people stopped reading right there.

[Vampyr]

Bond: I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't the key word here health care reform? Aren't the things you posted exactly what we want to change?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Bond: I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't the key word here health care reform? Aren't the things you posted exactly what we want to change?

So you'll decrease costs by moving forward with more public intervention... the very reason why costs are so high.

What Bond is saying is that increase public spending/intervention has shown to do nothing but increase costs exponentially. Now there are a lot of lovely assumptions being made by those that are for public healthcare, most saying that they'll lower costs... but understand that there is no evidence that government intervention has ever done anything but increase costs and waste.

Meanwhile, evidence shows costs were lower per capita when the individual controlled most of their healthcare spending.

Now will it work this time? Well, thats what proponents of socialization have been hoping for 100 years... It hasn't worked out yet, and I have yet to see a reason to believe it will now.

[Bond]

From personal experience, I know and have spoken with frequently: two hospital CEOs, one health insurance CEO, and several persons who work for insurance companies, hospitals, and health systems.

They are all capitalist pigs who solely care about profit.

P.S. They also hate poor people.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

From personal experience, I know and have spoken with frequently: two hospital CEOs, one health insurance CEO, and several persons who work for insurance companies, hospitals, and health systems.

They are all capitalist pigs who solely care about profit.

P.S. They also hate poor people.

They're also rich too, right?

[Swan]

I hate poor people too...

[The Germanator]

All I've heard about is the This American Life episode where a lady talks about how she got cancer and was dropped from coverage because she once incorrectly reported that she hadn't taken some acne medication. Insurance companies will look for ANY reason to drop you when you really need coverage.

Also, dropping people for predisposed conditions is terrible. I got a blood test recently because my brother almost died from a genetic blood disorder (he didn't have health insurance, didn't really have the $$$ to pay for it, we put off going to the ER for that reason and that's why he could have died, but that's a whole other story). So I buy health insurance, pay a decent amount of money for it, and get a blood test, and the insurance company tries to charge me the full amount for it. They tried to squeeze any bill possible out of my pocket. I'm kind of afraid to go back to the doctor, what will they try to charge for me next? I ended up not even having the same blood disorder! The privatization is not a good option, and we need a good public option.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

All I've heard about is the This American Life episode where a lady talks about how she got cancer and was dropped from coverage because she once incorrectly reported that she hadn't taken some acne medication. Insurance companies will look for ANY reason to drop you when you really need coverage.

I <3 This American Life. Have you started listening to the Planet Money Podcast? It's quite good as well!

To be fair to the insurance companies in this situation, making that kind of an error on a legally-binding insurance contract is, possibly, grounds for voiding the said contract. The mistake of the woman not including her acne medication must have been material to her care, otherwise it would not be grounds for a breech of contract. It's actually more of a legal issue than a health care issue.

[Bond]

(Photo from earlier today)

Didn't the campaign end last year? Quite odd choosing to use a former campaign logo over the seal of the Office of the President.

[TheGame]

He's campaigning for 2012!