Notre Dame Files Lawsuit Over Obamacare

[pkt77242]

A central (corrupt, or at least wasteful) entity causes the very problem that you are trying to eliminate (money not profiting the insured).

How can you possibly think that the government, which has been running (ruining?) our economy and our budget (Hows that debt?) and countless foreign expeditions (Many rather pointless and expensive wars) could run our health care? Why is the answer more government involvement, if we've already seen where that leads to?

We have also seen what happens with a for profit healthcare industry. Guess what it gets you. The most money spent per individual and by no means the best healthcare. So why keep doing the same thing and hoping it changes?

 

[IrishLax]

They are not mandated to endorse it. The insurance company will pay for it (and mostly likely they will love to pay for it).

Here is the math on it. A normal birth costs about $8000 (that includes prenatal care but nothing after leaving the hospital). Birth control costs about $50 per month (but can vary widely based on generic vs namebrand or what type is used).

So lets do the math on this.
Lets peg the birth control costs on the high end at $100 a month.

it would take 6 years and 8 months of birth control to cover the one pregnancy (not including and after hospital care). So for an insurance company it is much more cost efficient to cover birth control than to have unintended pregnancies. Plain and simple. The church isn't required to cover the birth control and the insurance is glad to pay for it. Have you noticed that the insurance industry isn't bitching about the rule. Because it will save them money over the long run.

Trust me... I'm aware of the math. I love birth control. I've read Freakanomics. Birth control is awesome and the fiscally sound choice.

I don't know what you mean by they're "not mandated to endorse it." That is exactly the issue. The Government is saying in this bill that you must provide contraceptive as part of health benefits. ND is saying they do not want elective contraceptive to be part of their plan. Here is the direct quote from the ND press release:

The University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit Monday (May 21) challenging the constitutionality of a federal regulation that requires religious organizations to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate insurance coverage for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I don't know you, but I like your opinions. (I'm about to start my 3rd year of medical school and I've surpassed the $200,000 student loan mark with two more full years to pay for and expecting to graduate with a debt in excess of $300,000. I'll need that income to pay off my student loans, let alone make any money.)

I've thought about this, too. The cost of medical school should be offset, obviously. If attorneys work in public service after law school, they pay a reduced rate on federal student loan debt for ten years, then their debt is forgiven. Similarly, doctors that accept government insurance could have their debt forgiven. Essentially, we should pay to educate and train our medical professionals if we are going to treat medicine as a type of service rather than as a private industry. Doctors that want to do boob jobs instead of working in an ER would be free to pursue that on their own.

 

[pumpdog20]

I've thought about this, too. The cost of medical school should be offset, obviously. If attorneys work in public service after law school, they pay a reduced rate on federal student loan debt for ten years, then their debt is forgiven. Similarly, doctors that accept government insurance could have their debt forgiven. Essentially, we should pay to educate and train our medical professionals if we are going to treat medicine as a type of service rather than as a private industry. Doctors that want to do boob jobs instead of working in an ER would be free to pursue that on their own.

I know, at least in small town Iowa, a lot of communities are paying for student loans as long as the doctor commits to a certain amount of years. My brother-in-law just completed his 3rd year residency and this is the deal he got, as what was the norm as far as he was concerned.

 

[pkt77242]

I can't believe you're serious. The funniest thing is I read Rhode Irish's post and totally get his well-reasoned, logical statements even if I disagree with some minutiae of them. But your post, quoting his... is just dribble.

First, you just make up statistics. "Not the case for 99%"... please. That is a joke. More than 1% of the population works directly for the Government OR has substantial wealth... so that's just so flat out wrong it makes me facepalm. The simple fact is the vast majority of people do just fine under the current system; changes to socialized or quasi-socialized healthcare is to help the MINORITY of people who are not covered. I think the general estimate of Americans without full coverage is somewhere around 15%.

Second, infant mortality, etc. etc. are not "far worse" than the rest of the "industrialized world"... we're within ~0.1% in infant mortality rate of Canada, for example... and within ~.3% of every single major country except Japan (I'm not counting Monaco because it's Monaco). Life expectancy? Within roughly 1 year of the European Union. So please stop grossly exaggerating the issues at hand.... and also, it's worth noting that the very slight differences really have nothing at all to do with healthcare.... and have everything to do with the obesity/fast food diet that many Americans live on.

So in short... good post Rhode Irish. Bad post by you. The sky is not falling, the "99%" for the most part do just fine, and the rest of the world does not do significantly better. There are aspects of our healthcare system that could definitely be approved, but in my humble opinion that'd be better accomplished with a fine red pen than the giant black Sharpie our Congress decided to use.

This is slight old Number of people without health insurance in U.S. climbs - Sep. 13, 2011 but the number of uninsured is a little over 16% (16.3) but that doesn't include the underinsured. Also the number 1 reason for filing for bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. Our infant mortality rate is directly related to the prenatal care that poor people in our country receive. While I would agree that the majority of people do fine under our system, I would say it is probably closer to 60/40 (60% doing fine, 40% not so fine, wether uninsured, underinsured, or a lost job away from being screwed).

 

[BobD]

I've thought about this, too. The cost of medical school should be offset, obviously. If attorneys work in public service after law school, they pay a reduced rate on federal student loan debt for ten years, then their debt is forgiven. Similarly, doctors that accept government insurance could have their debt forgiven. Essentially, we should pay to educate and train our medical professionals if we are going to treat medicine as a type of service rather than as a private industry. Doctors that want to do boob jobs instead of working in an ER would be free to pursue that on their own.

Couldn't we make one little exception to fund the boob doctors?

 

[Kak7304]

I can't believe you're serious. The funniest thing is I read Rhode Irish's post and totally get his well-reasoned, logical statements even if I disagree with some minutiae of them. But your post, quoting his... is just dribble.

First, you just make up statistics. "Not the case for 99%"... please. That is a joke. More than 1% of the population works directly for the Government OR has substantial wealth... so that's just so flat out wrong it makes me facepalm. The simple fact is the vast majority of people do just fine under the current system; changes to socialized or quasi-socialized healthcare is to help the MINORITY of people who are not covered. I think the general estimate of Americans without full coverage is somewhere around 15%.

Second, infant mortality, etc. etc. are not "far worse" than the rest of the "industrialized world"... we're within ~0.1% in infant mortality rate of Canada, for example... and within ~.3% of every single major country except Japan (I'm not counting Monaco because it's Monaco). Life expectancy? Within roughly 1 year of the European Union. So please stop grossly exaggerating the issues at hand.... and also, it's worth noting that the very slight differences really have nothing at all to do with healthcare.... and have everything to do with the obesity/fast food diet that many Americans live on.

So in short... good post Rhode Irish. Bad post by you. The sky is not falling, the "99%" for the most part do just fine, and the rest of the world does not do significantly better. There are aspects of our healthcare system that could definitely be approved, but in my humble opinion that'd be better accomplished with a fine red pen than the giant black Sharpie our Congress decided to use.

Excellent post. You raise a very interesting point about the American lifestyle. A good deal of our health care issues come from poor health practices on the part of our citizens. Obesity is becoming an absolute crisis in our nation. I recently heard a comparison of smoking's burden on the healthcare system vs. obesity's. Smoking led to massive health care costs for all the associated problems such as COPD and cancer. Obesity is having the same effect but is happening in a greater portion of our population. Another, larger difference between the two is that a smokers' health declines rapidly and smokers die relatively quickly. Obese people, thanks to modern medicine, are able to be saved and have their lives extended. This leads to them driving up costs for an extended period a time. I highly recommend the documentary "Weight of a Nation" on HBO for some insight into this current epidemic.

 

[pkt77242]

Trust me... I'm aware of the math. I love birth control. I've read Freakanomics. Birth control is awesome and the fiscally sound choice.

I don't know what you mean by they're "not mandated to endorse it." That is exactly the issue. The Government is saying in this bill that you must provide contraceptive as part of health benefits. ND is saying they do not want elective contraceptive to be part of their plan. Here is the direct quote from the ND press release:

I know what the ND press release says but that is not what the rule says. It says that the insurance company will cover the cost of the birth control not the religous employers.

From Reuters U.S. Catholic groups sue to block contraception mandate | Reuters

"As a compromise, Obama scaled back the controversial healthcare rule in February, announcing that insurance companies would cover the cost of the birth control for religious employers. But the complaints filed on Monday said the accommodation did not go far enough"

The reason insurance companies are willing to do this is because it will save them a large sum of money as my orignal post indicated.

 

[aaronb]

I can't believe you're serious. The funniest thing is I read Rhode Irish's post and totally get his well-reasoned, logical statements even if I disagree with some minutiae of them. But your post, quoting his... is just dribble.

First, you just make up statistics. "Not the case for 99%"... please. That is a joke. More than 1% of the population works directly for the Government OR has substantial wealth... so that's just so flat out wrong it makes me facepalm. The simple fact is the vast majority of people do just fine under the current system; changes to socialized or quasi-socialized healthcare is to help the MINORITY of people who are not covered. I think the general estimate of Americans without full coverage is somewhere around 15%.

Second, infant mortality, etc. etc. are not "far worse" than the rest of the "industrialized world"... we're within ~0.1% in infant mortality rate of Canada, for example... and within ~.3% of every single major country except Japan (I'm not counting Monaco because it's Monaco). Life expectancy? Within roughly 1 year of the European Union. So please stop grossly exaggerating the issues at hand.... and also, it's worth noting that the very slight differences really have nothing at all to do with healthcare.... and have everything to do with the obesity/fast food diet that many Americans live on.

So in short... good post Rhode Irish. Bad post by you. The sky is not falling, the "99%" for the most part do just fine, and the rest of the world does not do significantly better. There are aspects of our healthcare system that could definitely be approved, but in my humble opinion that'd be better accomplished with a fine red pen than the giant black Sharpie our Congress decided to use.

Life expectancy by country. USA 38th

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infant mortality rate. USA 34th

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Healthcare % of a nations GDP show that we spend way more than any other country in the world.

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings


No matter what misinformation you want to ascribe to. The system DOES need to be overhauled.

 

[IrishLax]

This is slight old Number of people without health insurance in U.S. climbs - Sep. 13, 2011 but the number of uninsured is a little over 16% (16.3) but that doesn't include the underinsured. Also the number 1 reason for filing for bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. Our infant mortality rate is directly related to the prenatal care that poor people in our country receive. While I would agree that the majority of people do fine under our system, I would say it is probably closer to 60/40 (60% doing fine, 40% not so fine, wether uninsured, underinsured, or a lost job away from being screwed).

40%? Based on what? The only numbers I can find quickly on Google seems to suggest an additional 25 million "underinsured" but that's from 2008... which would put the number somewhere circa ~25% for total people either "underinsured" or uninsured. That's still far short of 40%. But I'd love some new numbers.

'Underinsured' Americans may raise all health care costs - Mar. 5, 2009

 

[IrishLax]

Life expectancy by country. USA 38th

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infant mortality rate. USA 34th

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Healthcare % of a nations GDP show that we spend way more than any other country in the world.

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings


No matter what misinformation you want to ascribe to. The system DOES need to be overhauled.

.............................. you have to be kidding me

Those numbers match exactly what I just put in my post........................... which I took from the CIA handbook from 2011. Did you even read what I wrote or did you just go grab some wikipedia links? Not one thing I posted was "misinformation."

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 

[NewBrunswickIrish]

How much money do insurance companies spend on marketing?

More competition always lowers costs. The easiest short-term adjustment we could make would be to allow competition over state lines, no?



Not really sure I agree with all of that.

The solution isn't always more competition sometimes it's regulation.

Here's a link from a somewhat right wing thinktank in Canada (meaning probably more left-wing socialist crazy talk than even the Democrats) that discusses how some countries, Sweden and Netherlands, could help make the Canadian system better. I think that it still applies to this case as well since it is about health care reform although Canada would be moving in the opposite direction of the U.S. if these policies were adopted by both.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_339.pdf

Also, you guys may bitch and complain about how bad a Canadian health care system would be but as a Canadian I can tell you it is probably comparable, and surprisingly more cost effective (fact, look it up) than the American system.

 

[IrishLax]

LOL your wikipedia page even references the stats I quoted in my post and you're talking at me about "misinformation." You clearly aren't even bothering to read what is being written.

 

[aaronb]

LOL your wikipedia page even references the stats I quoted in my post and you're talking at me about "misinformation." You clearly aren't even bothering to read what is being written.

What misinformation am I accusing you of? I simply stated and sited that the metrics of our healthcare system are such. That we spend the greatest amount of money for a system that is in the mid 30's of World Wide Metrics.

Obviously it needs to be overhauled. And the reason it isn't being over hauled is because of the misinformation campaign that pollutes the slack jawed masses.

 

[pkt77242]

40%? Based on what? The only numbers I can find quickly on Google seems to suggest an additional 25 million "underinsured" but that's from 2008... which would put the number somewhere circa ~25% for total people either "underinsured" or uninsured. That's still far short of 40%. But I'd love some new numbers.

'Underinsured' Americans may raise all health care costs - Mar. 5, 2009

This article Number of Underinsured Adults Rises by 80% - DailyFinance puts it at 81 million uninsured or underinsured so it is close to your projection.

But that doesn't include people that are one serious illness away from losing everything.
people who change jobs and don't get coverage right away, etc.

What I think would be a telling statistic but not available is if you took out people on government insurance (medicare or medicaid) and then measured the percentage of people that are underinsured or uninsured. What really should matter is the number of people of private insurance. About 50+ million are on medicaid and 48 million or so on Medicare. Over half of our population is on a government program or underinsured/uninsured.

 

[irishrecruiting]

Also, if you want to witness what socialized medicine looks like, go visit a VA clinic. Months of paperwork, spend all day to be told you'll hear from them in 6-8 weeks, misdiagnosis that take even longer to get you right. I understand healthcare reform pricing is needed, and I have no idea where to start, but I do know I don't want socialized medicine.

^ Agree

As many in the thread have previously stated, the United States' health care system is flawed and I really don't think there is any good solution. It's obviously not a government controlled solution, and it's not an "every man for himself" solution. I really think there are so many gray areas that there will never be a "perfect" answer for this. By perfect, I mean one that everyone is happy with. Just won't happen.

I've watched "Sicko" by Michael Moore. I've also witnessed firsthand socialized medicine -- particularly in the UK -- and how poor it actually is. Yes, it's cost efficient. No, it's not as medically efficient. Not trying to play a pity card, but socialized health care system pretty much solidified my grandmother and grandfather's deaths. (I'm just stating a fact.)

It was really disgraceful how it was handled. Someone stated earlier that the U.S. has the best medical care if money didn't matter. Hands down correct. Having lived in both countries, I completely agree.

Unfortunately there's no way out of this for the government. Dug its own hole and -- as more of a liberal on most issues -- this is one that I hate to talk about. I hate it because yes, the current system (created and planned by a liberal) is corrupt. I also hate it because the bashing the liberals get for this.

Sorry for rambling, but finally, someone mentioned the leftist media as being ridiculous (paraphrasing). As someone who has studied media in this country, I'd be careful of generalizations. Bringing in the Trayvon Martin case, etc. gets into a whole different area. There are plenty of newsworthy topics both sides have neglected to cover, so it's certainly not a one-way street and the more-left media is certainly not the only side at fault.

OK, carry on. Sorry for this babbling, but I just wanted to chime in. Not looking for arguments because as I said, this is a really no-win topic for anyone. I just wanted to throw in my two cents and then jump out. Thanks for reading this. (If you managed to make it to the end!)

 

[IrishLax]

What misinformation am I accusing you of? I simply stated and sited that the metrics of our healthcare system are such. That we spend the greatest amount of money for a system that is in the mid 30's of World Wide Metrics.

Obviously it needs to be overhauled. And the reason it isn't being over hauled is because of the misinformation campaign that pollutes the slack jawed masses.

"No matter what misinformation you want to ascribe to." I read that, based on the fact that you quoted my post, as you saying I'm ascribing to misinformation.

Regardless, the life expectancy difference is as easily accounted for by the fact that the United States has a larger percentage of African Americans than there are African Europeans. And there are barely any black people in places like Japan or Singapore. People of African descent have documented higher instances of cardiovascular disease and cancer. African Americans and Latinos have TWICE the risk of diabetes of European Americans. In general, African American males live 5 years shorter than European American males, and females live approximately 4 years shorter (using 2007 numbers, I assume any current numbers will be similar if not analogous).

The point is, looking at a blanket stat and saying "See! Americans don't live as long! It's all because of healthcare and we must fix it!" doesn't make sense because there are many, many more factors in play than just the healthcare. If you simply adjust for the 13% of the population that has a ~6.5% lower life expectancy, the numbers come out such that we move up about 10 spots.... then if you start adjusting for Latinos and Native Americans... you get the idea. If you compare our European American descent population straight up to Europeans... we actually come out dead even with the European Union as a whole.

So matter what way you try to slice it, we are very comparable with the rest of the "industrialized" world. I'd like to see improvements to our healthcare system... I think most everyone can agree on that... but I'll have to still respectfully disagree that gigantic sweeping changes are needed.

 

[pkt77242]

"No matter what misinformation you want to ascribe to." I read that, based on the fact that you quoted my post, as you saying I'm ascribing to misinformation.

Regardless, the life expectancy difference is as easily accounted for by the fact that the United States has a larger percentage of African Americans than there are African Europeans. And there are barely any black people in places like Japan or Singapore. People of African descent have documented higher instances of cardiovascular disease and cancer. African Americans and Latinos have TWICE the risk of diabetes of European Americans. In general, African American males live 5 years shorter than European American males, and females live approximately 4 years shorter (using 2007 numbers, I assume any current numbers will be similar if not analogous).

The point is, looking at a blanket stat and saying "See! Americans don't live as long! It's all because of healthcare and we must fix it!" doesn't make sense because there are many, many more factors in play than just the healthcare. If you simply adjust for the 13% of the population that has a ~6.5% lower life expectancy, the numbers come out such that we move up about 10 spots.... then if you start adjusting for Latinos and Native Americans... you get the idea. If you compare our European American descent population straight up to Europeans... we actually come out dead even with the European Union as a whole.

So matter what way you try to slice it, we are very comparable with the rest of the "industrialized" world. I'd like to see improvements to our healthcare system... I think most everyone can agree on that... but I'll have to still respectfully disagree that gigantic sweeping changes are needed.

I completely agree with your breakdown of the numbers, but could one of the reasons that african americans and latinos have a much shorter life expectancy be that they are much more likely to not have insurance. 40% of hispanics and 21% of african americans.
More Americans Uninsured in 2011

I think that our healthcare system is broken, but it isn't just the insurance companies fault. Everyone shares some blame. Ranging from the obvious Insurance companies and hospitals to the less obvious (doctors, and to a certain extent our education system that puts them hundereds of thousands of dollars in debt) to patients (too many ER visits for nonemergencies, not getting preventitive healthcare, not living a healthy lifestyle).

While I am fan of a single payer system (and yes it has flaws), I am not always a fan of a wholesale government takeover of the healthcare market (meaning they shouldn't take over all the hospitals and make all doctors their employees). Having said that I am open to any well thought out ideas that would actually lower the cost of healthcare and gets it under control.

 

[aaronb]

Is it possible that blacks and Latinos don't live as long because they are much less likely to have insurance?

What is the infant mortality and life expectancy rates in modernized Latin American countries?

 

[Downinthebend]

We have debt because we spent money on two wars, and then instead of paying for it by increasing revenues, we went the opposite direction and passed unfunded tax cuts. When Congress was operating under a strict pay-go regime we cut the former deficit and produced a budget surplus in about a decade.

To suggest that the inefficiency of government agencies has caused trillions of dollars worth of debt would be laughable if so many wingnuts didn't believe it.

Uh, I disagree. National Debt from 1940 to Present — Starting the Gallop, Bush II Passes the Baton to Obama « tobefree

"A good majority of the poor have been poor for generations. Their parents didn't have any money either."
And if their parents had more money from reduced taxes (or for that matter just less taxes in general) who would know where they'd have been to. Its a circle, but a circle I believe is correct.

"All this big government bashing seems a bit ironic considering it was the Federal Government that invented the very medium people are bashing it on. Anyhow, I'm still working on the Louis Nix shirts in case anyone was wondering."
The medium we're bashing it on is free speech O:.

"The solution isn't always more competition sometimes it's regulation.

Here's a link from a somewhat right wing thinktank in Canada (meaning probably more left-wing socialist crazy talk than even the Democrats) that discusses how some countries, Sweden and Netherlands, could help make the Canadian system better. I think that it still applies to this case as well since it is about health care reform although Canada would be moving in the opposite direction of the U.S. if these policies were adopted by both.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_339.pdf

Also, you guys may bitch and complain about how bad a Canadian health care system would be but as a Canadian I can tell you it is probably comparable, and surprisingly more cost effective (fact, look it up) than the American system."

I'm fine with regulation in principle. The problem is the power needs to be invested in a power that is competent and that is focused on the long term. Our government certainly isn't the first, and is incentived toward the short term and not the long term by elections.

However, when the government gains the power to regulate but is not competent or focused on the long term, that is where problems come up. Companies can lobby it for protective rights that hurt the consumer. Huge and wasteful bureaucracy form. inefficient (and irresponsible) spending arises. And the aims of it aren't fulfilled. Hows that public school system going for the country in most high schools? You're left with a big waste that claims that the answer is more of the waste.

 

[TerryTate]

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would love to see some minimum baseline standard of care for all Americans instituted in the US with the option to purchase more expensive treatments, doctors, etc. This would cut down on the abuse of ER visits by the uninsured, which are vastly more expensive than a regular doctor visit (you already pay for them when you go to the ER and get charged an exorbitant amount), allow everyone some access to health care, and preserve the advancement of medicine in the future by allowing people to purchase better care who can afford to do so.

That's my favored solution-- government-provided catastrophic insurance as a baseline, and a truly deregulated free-market in health insurance for everything else.

We have also seen what happens with a for profit healthcare industry. Guess what it gets you. The most money spent per individual and by no means the best healthcare. So why keep doing the same thing and hoping it changes?

No. We've seen what happens when you create an absurdly inefficient 3rd party payor system in which no one is properly incentivized to control costs. This country has never seen a free market for health care services.

Single payor has some serious drawbacks, but it can work. There's no doubt about that. Unfortunately, proponents of single payor point to relatively small, ethnically and culturally homogenous countries with low income inequality as evidence that it will work here. It might, but probably not as well.

Oh, and Obamacare isn't even single payor. It's a worst-of-all-worlds monstrosity that fails to offer the benefits of either a single payor or a truly free market system.

The American empire was built on free enterprise and individual choice. I'd rather give that a try than put future generations on the hook for yet another entitlement that Congress will mismanage.

 

[pkt77242]

That's my favored solution-- government-provided catastrophic insurance as a baseline, and a truly deregulated free-market in health insurance for everything else.



No. We've seen what happens when you create an absurdly inefficient 3rd party payor system in which no one is properly incentivized to control costs. This country has never seen a free market for health care services.

Single payor has some serious drawbacks, but it can work. There's no doubt about that. Unfortunately, proponents of single payor point to relatively small, ethnically and culturally homogenous countries with low income inequality as evidence that it will work here. It might, but probably not as well.

Oh, and Obamacare isn't even single payor. It's a worst-of-all-worlds monstrosity that fails to offer the benefits of either a single payor or a truly free market system.

The American empire was built on free enterprise and individual choice. I'd rather give that a try than put future generations on the hook for yet another entitlement that Congress will mismanage.

I know that the healthcare bill isn't a single payor system (I only wish they would have gone that far) and I think the bill has some major flaws but that is what happens when our congress gets involved (and both sides share some blame along with all the lobbyists).

I am against a deregulated system, while I agree with you that we haven't seen a true free market system, I think that regulation is important in an area as sensitive as healthcare.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I know that the healthcare bill isn't a single payor system (I only wish they would have gone that far) and I think the bill has some major flaws but that is what happens when our congress gets involved (and both sides share some blame along with all the lobbyists).

It's not like they got 90% toward a single payor system, but had to stop short for political reasons. The cancer at the heart of American health care is the third party payor system, and Obamacare left it in place. It is absolutely worse than what it replaced, and will be very difficult to fix as it now affects far more people, and everyone is currently gearing up for it.

I am against a deregulated system, while I agree with you that we haven't seen a true free market system, I think that regulation is important in an area as sensitive as healthcare.

Why? Plastic surgery, which is elective and deregulated, is relatively inexpensive because of competition, and it gets more affordable every day. Same goes for auto insurance. There's nothing inherent to the health care industry that prevents free market principles from working. We just have to design a system that ensures consumers are incentivized to minimize costs.

 

[pkt77242]

It's not like they got 90% toward a single payor system, but had to stop short for political reasons. The cancer at the heart of American health care is the third party payor system, and Obamacare left it in place. It is absolutely worse than what it replaced, and will be very difficult to replace as everyone is currently gearing up for it.



Why? Plastic surgery, which is elective and deregulated, is relatively inexpensive because of competition, and it gets more affordable every day. Same goes for auto insurance. There's nothing inherent to the health care industry that prevents free market principles from working. We just have to design a system that ensures consumers are incentivized to minimize costs.

They originally wanted the single payor system but they couldn't get enough senators to sign on to it. Then they tried to water it down to appeal to republicans (not that any of them ended up voting for it) and then to get enough democrats they had to start offering incentives into the legislation to get them to all sign on. Plus the shear amount of lobbying (read money) by the medical industries also helped shape it. unfortunately money rules our
political system and ruins many good legislation.

Also while I agree with you about Plastic surgery, I don't think you can just extrapolate that out to the rest of healthcare. One their is an overabundance of plastic surgeons (partly because they can still get rich even after pushing the prices down) and right now we are facing a drastic shortage of primary care doctors and that could drive prices up. Also what makes for good healthcare isn't always about minimizing costs. It is about where best to invest the money (preventative care, etc). The problem is we already have a problem with people avoiding things like preventative healthcare because they don't have the money to afford it. What might minimize costs up front in healthcare could lead to significant more expense down the road. I think it is trickier than other areas of our economy to have informed buyers as it is much more intricate and can take signifcant knowledge to navigate through. Also the risks are much higher. If my car needs an oil change but I decide that I can't afford it right now and I put it off to long, while I might damage some parts it isn't the end of the world. But if I am feeling chest pains and decide it is just some heartburn or anxiety so I ignore it, if it turns out to be a heart attack, then the effects are much more drastic and life threatening.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I hope all of Obamacare dies when the mandate gets shot down by the supreme court.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Why? Plastic surgery, which is elective and deregulated, is relatively inexpensive because of competition, and it gets more affordable every day. Same goes for auto insurance. There's nothing inherent to the health care industry that prevents free market principles from working. We just have to design a system that ensures consumers are incentivized to minimize costs.

THANK YOU. Someone get this man a beer!

We already have the government paying for 40% of health care within the US. Once the government enters a market it skews the S*** out of it, and creates another reason for more intervention.

Basic. Economics.

 

[WaveDomer]

One of the problems with the cost of healthcare is that a third party is in a two party transaction. That third party is government. So the two main parties: patient and medical provider, don't have to really concern themselves with cost. You also see this with college tuition. Introducing a third party is always inflationary. I think something like half of healthcare spending comes from the government already with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP etc. There is your third party.

Another problem is going to be supply and demand. If healthcare is "free", you are going to skyrocket demand. This happens already with Medicare etc. Supply will not keep up with that demand. There is no way. What usually happens is that cost goes up when demand exceeds supply. However, if the government tries to control costs, you will likely have quality go down.

And again, the simple question, if giving away birth control would lower insurance company costs, why haven't they done it before? Are they just that dense? Most who want socialized medicine say that insurance companies are greedy. So if they are greedy, why wouldn't they do something to increase profit?

Insurance is something that covers disaster. You get car insurance to cover an accident. Same with homeowners and life. Health insurance is now becoming something to cover every health issue because it's subsidized. Imagine car insurance that covered oil changes? The cost just doesn't add up. Healthcare in America used to be like that. It covered disaster, and the patient paid for other procedures out of pocket. The government came in, third party, and distorted the market. To fix the distortion the government just doubles down.

*This is my opinion, your opinion may differ.

 

[mgriff]

One of the problems with the cost of healthcare is that a third party is in a two party transaction. That third party is government. So the two main parties: patient and medical provider, don't have to really concern themselves with cost. You also see this with college tuition. Introducing a third party is always inflationary. I think something like half of healthcare spending comes from the government already with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP etc. There is your third party.

Another problem is going to be supply and demand. If healthcare is "free", you are going to skyrocket demand. This happens already with Medicare etc. Supply will not keep up with that demand. There is no way. What usually happens is that cost goes up when demand exceeds supply. However, if the government tries to control costs, you will likely have quality go down.

And again, the simple question, if giving away birth control would lower insurance company costs, why haven't they done it before? Are they just that dense? Most who want socialized medicine say that insurance companies are greedy. So if they are greedy, why wouldn't they do something to increase profit?

Insurance is something that covers disaster. You get car insurance to cover an accident. Same with homeowners and life. Health insurance is now becoming something to cover every health issue because it's subsidized. Imagine car insurance that covered oil changes? The cost just doesn't add up. Healthcare in America used to be like that. It covered disaster, and the patient paid for other procedures out of pocket. The government came in, third party, and distorted the market. To fix the distortion the government just doubles down.

*This is my opinion, your opinion may differ.

We've got a winner. Glad someone else is on the kill big government bandwagon. Well stated.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

One of the problems with the cost of healthcare is that a third party is in a two party transaction. That third party is government. So the two main parties: patient and medical provider, don't have to really concern themselves with cost. You also see this with college tuition. Introducing a third party is always inflationary. I think something like half of healthcare spending comes from the government already with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP etc. There is your third party.

Another problem is going to be supply and demand. If healthcare is "free", you are going to skyrocket demand. This happens already with Medicare etc. Supply will not keep up with that demand. There is no way. What usually happens is that cost goes up when demand exceeds supply. However, if the government tries to control costs, you will likely have quality go down.

And again, the simple question, if giving away birth control would lower insurance company costs, why haven't they done it before? Are they just that dense? Most who want socialized medicine say that insurance companies are greedy. So if they are greedy, why wouldn't they do something to increase profit?

Insurance is something that covers disaster. You get car insurance to cover an accident. Same with homeowners and life. Health insurance is now becoming something to cover every health issue because it's subsidized. Imagine car insurance that covered oil changes? The cost just doesn't add up. Healthcare in America used to be like that. It covered disaster, and the patient paid for other procedures out of pocket. The government came in, third party, and distorted the market. To fix the distortion the government just doubles down.

*This is my opinion, your opinion may differ.

This. Reps sir