Can Sarah Palin possibly be this stupid?

[_bcspace]

Considering how slow and inefficient the government is is ALL other areas, I certainly don't want the government in charge of whether I live or die. This is coming from someone who willingly pays $17,000 per year in private health insurance and other medical bills. I'd rather pay it than die waiting, or be stuck with an incompetent doctor, or find that the best treatment is not "approved".

Well here in the United States, if someone wants the doctor to clip their toenails, they pay the true cost rather than foisting it off on someone else.

[_Kevin Graham]

The wealthy generally come to America for health care, not because their country doesn't offer, but rather because the USA can cater to their desires to be treated like what they are: rich. Private hospitals are a joy to be in, even if you're not sick.

I'd rather pay it than die waiting, or be stuck with an incompetent doctor, or find that the best treatment is not "approved".

But you just described American health care to a T, without being governmet run. People with insurance are regularly denied coverage because (for example) an insurance company's hired investigator found out you once upon a time had a yeast infection, or were raped, or used to sleep walk in college, etc. That guy saved the company $20,000 from having to cover an operation, so instead of taking care of your kid, it pays the investigator a percentage of the money they saved. If you ever look in the paper and see an Ad for "Work At Home Filing Medical Claims" that say you can make 200k/year, well believe it. That's what this entails. Becoming a private investigator for insurance companies who don't have the manpower to investigate every claim it has paid. If a claim is already paid for, it will tell the hospital it is taking back the money, and the hospital will then come after you for it. This happens quite frequently in our current system.


The corporate desire to make a profit leads to more of these cases than in government run health care.

[_Some Schmo]

Well here in the United States, if someone wants the doctor to clip their toenails, they pay the true cost rather than foisting it off on someone else.

That's assuming the true cost includes the 30% overhead involved in having the private insurance company middleman.

Considering how slow and inefficient the government is is ALL other areas, I certainly don't want the government in charge of whether I live or die.

ALL other areas? I don't know about you, but I think the US postal system is pretty damn good, for instance.

And I'm not so sure that private insurance companies out to make a profit care any more about when you live or die than the government does. Do you seriously think insurance companies give a crap about your health care? I mean, seriously?

[_Sethbag]

What's funny about this is that we Americans are so used to looking to America for all the answers that people can get away with saying crap like "government-run healthcare doesn't work!" and people just buy into that, as if there wasn't this whole world of counter-evidence out there.

In reality, some sort of government involvement exists in the healthcare systems of every industrialized country in the entire world except the US. And these systems work fine. People in these countries aren't dying in droves as the doomsayers would imply, and are, by and large, pretty happy with the results. I can't think of one good reason why the US system couldn't work as well as, say, the German system.

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.

[_bcspace]

Well here in the United States, if someone wants the doctor to clip their toenails, they pay the true cost rather than foisting it off on someone else.

That's assuming the true cost includes the 30% overhead involved in having the private insurance company middleman.

Seems to be working better than any other system so far. What lefties always forget is the incentive for investment and creativity and opportunities for employement that profit brings. However, my recommendation is to get a high deductible plan and use a caferteria plan to cover the rest. That is more in line with the notion of insurance than what the liberals have redefined it to be.

ALL other areas? I don't know about you, but I think the US postal system is pretty damn good, for instance.

Well yes, it's one of the independent agencies mandated by the constitution. If it pays for itself, it's not a very good example for you case.

And I'm not so sure that private insurance companies out to make a profit care any more about when you live or die than the government does. Do you seriously think insurance companies give a crap about your health care? I mean, seriously?

Insurance companies are currently too stiffled by the government to make a negative assessment about them given current conditions. Government mandated coverage, underfunding of Medicaid and Medicare, and state mandated insurance monopolies all contribute to increase cost and reduce supply. Interesting how we didn't have so many problems when insurance companies operated in a free market.

I'm quite certain this system in a free market, even with a 50%, yes I said 50%, profit margin would be far cheaper and far more effective than any Canadian, Euro, or Obama-style system.

[_cinepro]

I think the Singapore Health Systemhas many aspects I would like to see emulated in our country:

Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized catastrophic health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as "actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" to keep costs in check; the specific features have been described as potentially a "very difficult system to replicate in many other countries." Many Singaporeans also have supplemental private health insurance (often provided by employers) for services not covered by the government's programs.[3]

I am vehemently against any proposed system that totally divorces the cost of health care from the service.

[_bcspace]

I am vehemently against any proposed system that totally divorces the cost of health care from the service.

I agree. Lots of smokers, for example, need more incentive to quit and they need to stop making us pay for their habits. Making their insuarnce prohibitively expensive is warranted, moral and justifiable.

And therein lies a huge solution to the problem. There are groups of people, who through their personal choices, make it more expensive for the rest of us. It would be far more productive to do something about these groups than to implement some form of government run care program.

[_Sethbag]

I like the idea of tying cost with service to some degree, to eliminate the toenail clipping visits and other abuses.

Although at first sticking it to the smokers seems desirable, on some levels it's not something I can readily agree to. The same logic one would use to stick it to the smokers would work on the fat people, who also cost us a lot in health care. This would inevitably lead to some kind of control over our consumption of fatty foods, or other things someone deems unhealthy. In the end, do we really want government buearocrats watching and counting every single thing we eat and drink, every day, how much exercise we do, and so forth, so that our "true" impact on the health care costs of the nation can be appropriately estimated?