Health Care Debate

[_The Nehor]

As it is now, we don't simply have bureaucracies, we have entire industries whose primary motive is to deny us health care in order to maximize their profits. HMOs, for-profit insurance companies, etc. who leech money from the system that would otherwise go toward providing actual health care.

So why are you acccepting a single large HMO from which you can't escape?

The single large HMO would have to provide care as it would be responsible to those it cared for. If it didn't then voters would tear it apart.

[_The Nehor]

The idea of a sin tax on fast food is that it would effect people in direct proportion to the amount of junk food they buy. Someone like me who tries not to eat so much wouldn't be hit as hard as those who can't live without their comfort food. I don't think it's doable though since it turns out that poor people generally eat more of this stuff because it's cheap. Furthermore even though I have a healthy BMI, I have relatives who would feel resentment at having a sin tax on their comfort foods. Still, for them I say that if it's their choice and their buisness, then it should be their bill and that even though I love them as family.

It's an attractive idea. However, a tax is a tax which means it also likely will benefit someone who, like the fast food eater, doesn't deserve it.

You mean things like roads, the military, police, the court system, etc.???? Why do we assume that tax money is waster?

Let the insurance companies charge whatever they want to cover, for example, atherosclerosis. Let the consumer choose whether or not to have that specific item coverd. That price then will be driven by how many desrie such coverage and how much they are willing to pay. Let the consumer learn by experience the true cost of the disease, your pocket book and your perhaps your life. Then you have the proper moral way to induce people to change their behavior without punishing someone else.

So in other words we will let people die if they don't get the right coverage? Also, how about high-risk patients? Are we going to let insurance companies set their own prices based on the patient and make medical coverage impossible to acquire for those whose costs are prohibitive?

As people modify their lifestyle, the cost will come down because there will be fewer claims. Perhaps the cost won't be so high because people will recognize their lifestyle and pay for coverage. Who knows? But it doesn't matter because in a pure market, everyone always pays the right price and the availability is always just right as well.

This won't work. It means that those who can't pay the right price die. If I were Darwinian this would be great. I'm not and neither is the Gospel I follow.

[_bcspace]

It's an attractive idea. However, a tax is a tax which means it also likely will benefit someone who, like the fast food eater, doesn't deserve it.

You mean things like roads, the military, police, the court system, etc.????

Apples and oranges.

So in other words we will let people die if they don't get the right coverage?

No. People might die only if they risk it. Their own choice.

Also, how about high-risk patients?

You mean those who smoke, drink heavily, gorge at McDonalds and/or engage in risky sexual behavior? Why should I be forced to pay for them? Such is even contrary to the gospel plan which makes it even more suprising that you would support it.

Are we going to let insurance companies set their own prices based on the patient and make medical coverage impossible to acquire for those whose costs are prohibitive?

Yes. The market will insure those will be very few; much less in fact than say, those on a single payor/buyer governement plan. remember the concept of insurance (the real one, not the one we have today), people will band together to share costs. I happen to belong to one of those already. Much cheaper than insurance and I have two kids with asthma.

This won't work. It means that those who can't pay the right price die.

It's always worked. Perhaps your public schooling was much worse than mine was (when public schools were great) and you've been raised on left wing propganda.

If I were Darwinian this would be great. I'm not and neither is the Gospel I follow.

State welfare is contrary to the gospel in every way.

[_Kevin Graham]

That is in large part because the US subsidizes the rest of the world in this area. We pay for most of the research and development and sometimes, production. People in socialized systems around the world are taking advantage of this and don't pay for what's been done to even make medication available to them. The bearing of the cost is so skewed that it's not just new and experiemental drugs that are high priced; the worldwide cost also has to be made up here by raising the price of longtime and low cost to produce drugs as well.

Sorry dude, but you're just regurgitating the excuses the drug companies pay billions to put in our heads. Studies on the subject reveal this myth for what it is. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How they Deceive Us and What to do About it:

"only 14 percent of their budgets go on developing drugs -- usually at the uncreative final part of the drug-trail. The rest goes on marketing and profits. And even with that puny 14 percent, drug companies squander a fortune developing "me-too" drugs -- medicines that do exactly the same job as a drug that already exists, but has one molecule different, so they can take out a new patent, and receive another avalanche of profits.

As a result, the US Government Accountability Office says that far from being a font of innovation, the drug market has become "stagnant." They spend virtually nothing on the diseases that kill the most human beings, like malaria, because the victims are poor, so there's hardly any profit to be sucked out."

From today's article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-ha ... 51365.html

The drug companies have spent more than $3 billion on lobbyists and political "contributions" over the past decade in the US alone. They have paid politicians to make the system work in their interests. If you doubt how deeply this influence goes, listen to a Republican congressman, Walter Burton, who admitted of the last big health care legislation passed in the US in 2003: "The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill."

There is a far better way to develop medicines, if only we will take it. It was first proposed by Joseph Stiglitz, the recent Nobel Prize winner for economics. He says: "Research needs money, but the current system results in limited funds being spent in the wrong way."

Stiglitz's plan is simple. The governments of the Western world should establish a multi-billion dollar prize fund that will give payments to scientists who develop cures or vaccines for diseases. The highest prizes would go to cures for diseases that kill millions of people, like malaria. Once the pay-out is made, the rights to use the treatment will be in the public domain. Anybody anywhere in the world could manufacture the drug and use it to save lives.

The financial incentive in this system for scientists remains exactly the same -- but all humanity reaps the benefits, not a tiny private monopoly and those lucky few who can afford to pay their bloated prices. The irrationalities of the current system -- spending a fortune on me-too drugs, and preventing sick people from making the medicines that would save them -- would end.

It isn't cheap -- it would cost 0.6 percent of GDP -- but in the medium-term, it would save us all a fortune, because our health care systems would no longer have to pay huge premiums to drug companies. Meanwhile, the cost of medicine would come crashing down for the poor -- and tens of millions would be able to afford it for the first time.

Yet moves to change the current system are blocked by the drug companies and their armies of lobbyists. That's why the way we regulate the production of medicines across the world is still designed to serve the interests of the shareholders of the drug companies -- not the health of humanity.

The idea of ring-fencing life-saving medical knowledge so a few people can profit from it is one of the great grotesqueries of our age. We have to tear down this sick system -- so the sick can live. Only then we can globalize the spirit of Jonas Salk, the great scientist who invented the polio vaccine, but refused to patent it, saying simply: "It would be like patenting the sun."

[_asbestosman]

Bcspace, what do you think about patents and copyrights? Patents and copyrights distort the market by creating unnatural monopolies.

Also, what do you propose we do for those with pre-existing conditions that are not their fault?

[_JohnStuartMill]

bcspace is an economic illiterate, abman. Don't waste your time.

[_asbestosman]

Also, Bcspace, have you read the book, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. I highly recommend it. The author, Ha-Joon Chang, may not be right but he at least gets you thinking. This isn't some crackpot emotional appeal to fairness or whatever. This guy has a firm grasp of economics. He gives the free market credit for what it does best--maximum efficiency given the current capabilities of all parties. He also tends to avoid extremes in policy or ideals.

[_bcspace]

From today's article:

Someone needs to remind Kevin about "talking points" in about, oh, the fifth post..... Get real Kevin. Stick to Islamic issues. You're out of your league on this one.

Also, Bcspace, have you read the book, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. I highly recommend it. The author, Ha-Joon Chang, may not be right but he at least gets you thinking.

I may take a crack at it. Looks good. But I am already aware of what makes capitalism work and what the government's role needs to be. There is a lot to be critical of in "capitalism" now.

But real capitalism, which is rarely practiced, is virtually immune from citicism unless you are one of the few on the margin. It is those few who occaisionally aggitate for government intervention which always adds more people to the margin. About the margin; it must always exist in a small way else there is no flexibility to change when other circumstances change.

This isn't some crackpot emotional appeal to fairness or whatever. This guy has a firm grasp of economics. He gives the free market credit for what it does best--maximum efficiency given the current capabilities of all parties. He also tends to avoid extremes in policy or ideals.

I am fairly well schooled in economics, but I'm not above looking at new information and ideas. However, I've pretty much heard it all with regards to this issue. My father has even testified before the US Congress and many state congresses on this very issue (no, this is not an insurance company or anyone who benefits from insurance companies involved here).

There is nothing extreme whatsoever about my view. It's simple common sense and what's worked in the past and what doesn't work now. The insurance companies are simply responding to the playing field. Government intervention tilts it, but in the wrong way.

bcspace is an economic illiterate, abman. Don't waste your time.

JSM simply spews the Obama propaganda he's assigned on a daily basis. He responded to the call for political officers and now he is one.

[_JohnStuartMill]

But real capitalism, which is rarely practiced, is virtually immune from citicism unless you are one of the few on the margin. It is those few who occaisionally aggitate for government intervention which always adds more people to the margin. About the margin; it must always exist in a small way else there is no flexibility to change when other circumstances change.

So you think that we should leave things entirely to laissez-faire capitalism, because free-market competition is always effective?

From which reputable economists do you get these ideas?

[_cinepro]

I don't know why we can't just find a country that has a great health care system, and then just copy it. Like Singapore.

* There are mandatory health savings accounts: "Individuals pre-save for medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions... Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for by deducting one's Medisave account, for oneself, grandparents, parents, spouse or children: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash..."
* "The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available."
* Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.
* The government pays for "basic healthcare services... subject to tight expenditure control." Bottom line: The government pays 80% of "basic public healthcare services."
* Government plays a big role with contagious disease, and adds some paternalism on top: "Preventing diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tobacco-related illnesses by ensuring good health conditions takes a high priority."
* The government provides optional low-cost catatrophic health insurance, plus a safety net "subject to stringent means-testing."

Singapore has achieved American health outcomes for about a quarter of the share of GDP the U.S. spends. Furthermore, if Canada shows that socialized medicine can save a few percent of GDP without hurting health, Singapore shows that the free lunch offered by greater government control is meager compared to the free lunch offered by old-fashioned individual incentives.

Just google "singapore health care" and you can find a lot of great information.

Here's another great article:

The Singapore Model

The World Health Organization’s most recent full report on global health statistics says the United States spends 15.4 percent of its GDP on healthcare, while Singapore spends just 3.7 percent.

What’s the reason for Singapore’s success? It’s not government spending. The state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that Singapore’s government spends only $381 (all dollars in this article are U.S.) per capita on health—or one-seventh what the U.S. government spends.

Singapore’s system requires individuals to take responsibility for their own health, and for much of their own spending on medical care. As the Health Ministry puts it, “Patients are expected to co-pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more when they demand a higher level of service. At the same time, government subsidies help to keep basic healthcare affordable.”

The reason the system works so well is that it puts decisions in the hands of patients and doctors rather than of government bureaucrats and insurers. The state’s role is to provide a safety net for the few people unable to save enough to pay their way, to subsidize public hospitals, and to fund preventative health campaigns.