|
Pick One. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
On a personal aside, I think the idea of health care being expensive is an interesting one. In the US, people will go out and buy $6000 flat screen TVs, homes that are tens of thousands of dollars above their income range and cars that guzzle both gas and maintenance fees. Then, when they have to pay a several hundred a month in health insurance, it is too expensive. If I had to choose (as I've had to) between paying for a fancy car or expensive TV, or paying for insurance, so that if I get sick I WON'T DIE, the choice seems pretty obvious. All of those other material possessions are pretty insignificant if you're dead. I just can't understand why paying several hundred dollars a month for a TV or car is fine, but when health insurance gets to that range, it's outrageous.
(One reason I say this is because the majority of individuals without health insurance could afford it, but choose not to buy it.) |
You basically just said that in america (one of the richest countries in the world), if you don't have enough money, you can die due to bad healthcare. that is sick imo. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
You basically just said that in america (one of the richest countries in the world), if you don't have enough money, you can die due to bad healthcare. that is sick imo. |
I said in an earlier post that 1/3 of individuals recieving health care never pay a cent and another 1/3 pay a fraction of their bill. No one dies due to bad healthcare, as by law everyone must recieve the same care regardless of their ability to pay or type of payment. I'm trying to say that if we stopped people from abusing the system (e.g. people demanding four times the amount of health care dollars per person than the nearest country) and people that can afford health insurance buying it, we wouldn't find nearly the amount of problems that the US health care system finds itself in. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Someone please explain to me why healthcare is a "right". Seriously, I'd love to hear a compelling argument that doesn't rely on emotional pursuasion, but rather an argument that is objective and explains why a person should be entitled to receive something for free at the cost of another. Don't feed me some like "Doctors are rich and therefore should be required to perform services for free."
If you can convince me of that, I will be hiring you to also make sure my car and homeowners insurance are free as well. |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
I pick the libertarian solution:
| quote: |
[June 19] America has a health care problem that has developed into a full-fledged epidemic.
Over 40 million Americans currently lack health insurance. Skyrocketing healthcare costs eat up about 15% of the nation's total productivity. Thousands of businesses have dropped their employee health care benefits.
How did the American health care system become so diseased?
Prior to the 1960s, America had a health care system that many considered the best in the world. Most Americans could afford to pay for health insurance; hospital procedures didn't cost a week's pay; charity hospitals were available for the poor and indigent; and doctors even made house calls.
Then the federal government stepped in with programs and regulations that would allegedly make health care more accessible. Since then, prices have gone up at a feverish pace, and increasing numbers of people are unable to afford coverage.
The ballooning cost of health care has been met by cries for even more government intervention. In the past year, politicians have proposed a Medicare prescription drug benefit, a "mental health parity" bill to force insurers to cover mental illnesses, and a "Patients' Bill of Rights" to give individuals more power to deal with health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
But further government intrusion into the health care market would be a cure worse than the disease. For a case in point, just look to America's northern neighbor.
Under Canada's "free" health care system, tax revenues fund all health care. There are no user fees. No insurance companies. No health care management organizations. At first blush, it sounds like the perfect patient paradise.
The reality is quite different. Canadian politicians may have been able to dispense with the for-profit system, but they have been unable to repeal the laws of supply and demand.
According to the Canadian Fraser Institute, hospital waiting times have increased a dramatic 51% since 1993, when the median wait for Canadian patients to receive treatment was already 9.3 weeks.
Why? Because with government paying health care bills, there is no reason for individuals to economize. As a result, every minor ache or pain is viewed as a legitimate reason for a medical visit. So Canadian physicians suffer from case overload, while Canadian patients wait. And wait. And wait.
As Guy King, former chief actuary for the Health Care Financing Administration, noted, "When people, either patients or doctors, are spending other people's money, they do not worry about the cost or number of services consumed."
That's the problem in a nutshell. Today, almost half of all American health care dollars are spent by governments -- not by private individuals or companies. In addition, reams of regulations further burden health care providers.
Rather than further enmeshing the government in medicine, we should dramatically reduce its role -- and, by doing so, make health care more affordable. To that end, politicians should:
* Replace the FDA. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), getting a new drug approved costs a pharmaceutical company $300 million on average, and can take as long as 10 years.
This regulatory hoopla not only boosts the price of drugs, but it keeps potentially life-saving medicines off the market. As a result, patients suffer and die.
Take the case of Propanalol. In 1968, the FDA approved this drug, but, for almost a decade, refused to allow it to be used for angina or hypertension. A study by Arthur D. Little, Inc. estimated that roughly 10,000 Americans died for lack of the drug each year the FDA prevented doctors from prescribing it.
Not only does the FDA keep prices high and waiting periods long, but as Robert Goldberg of Brandeis University said, "The FDA has sat on or rejected drugs for depression, schizophrenia, kidney cancer, and epilepsy -- not because they were unsafe, but because in the final analysis the agency didn't think the drug was so important or effective."
If we disposed with the FDA, patients and their doctors would be able to decide whether a particular drug is "important or effective" -- not health care bureaucrats.
Moreover, private certification associations could fill that niche, similar to how Underwriters Laboratories (UL) currently certifies electrical appliances. UL is an independent, not-for-profit organization that develops standards and rates electrical products, giving them a non-governmental seal of approval if they are safe.
* End Medicare and Medicaid. Passed in 1965, Medicare is a compulsory medical welfare program for the elderly, while Medicaid is a medical welfare program for the poor.
According to former LP presidential candidate Harry Browne, the average senior citizen now pays more than twice as much from their own pocket for health care as they did before Medicare -- even after allowing for inflation. In addition, there are over 100,000 pages of Medicare regulations in the Federal Register.
Meanwhile, the payroll tax to fund the programs continues to rise. In 1965, the tax was just 0.9%, divided between employer and employee. Today the total tax is 2.9%, taking over $1,200 from the average worker's income.
According to Browne, "Because these programs impose so many requirements, the health-care system now has far more administrators per patient and far fewer doctors and nurses per patient. Those big medical bills aren't paying your doctor's country club dues -- they're financing a bigger and bigger health-care bureaucracy."
If the government ended these programs, the government-mandated administrative costs would disappear, and the price of care would drop dramatically.
* Institute a universal medical tax credit. About 90% of workers with health insurance are covered through their employers, who are permitted to write off health care coverage from their taxable business revenue. As a result of this tax code enticement, many American workers consider health insurance to be "free."
A medical tax credit would, by contrast, encourage consumers to pay closer attention to how their health care dollars are spent.
Under such a system, each taxpayer would personally pay for health insurance and medical costs -- and then deduct those payments, dollar for dollar, from his or her tax bill.
According to the actuarial firm Milliman USA and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, an $800 per-person tax credit could cover 90% of a typical health insurance premium. As for the "universal" component, individual taxpayers could choose to write off an additional amount and donate it to hospitals or low-income individuals.
Merill E. Mathews, Jr., director of the Council of Affordable Health Insurance, said, "A tax credit would be the most efficient way to assist uninsured Americans who do not get health insurance through an employer."
* Deregulate insurance companies. Currently, the government forces insurance companies and HMOs to cover certain maladies and services -- regardless of whether you need them or not. One example is gynecological services, which must be offered even in a plan bought by a man.
Politicians also force insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions -- such as glaucoma or cancer -- under their policies. A study by the American Society of Actuaries found that claim costs rise by an average of 38% wherever a guaranteed-issue rule is imposed.
Instead of further driving up costs, Congress should focus on deregulating the health care companies, and allow consumers to choose a less inclusive plan tailored to their individual needs.
Considering the current trend toward a nationalized health care program, the prognosis for the ailing American system looks bleak. However, the situation is still curable if we enact a healthy dose of free-market initiatives -- not additional centralized controls.
As the debate rages over how to fix America's health care system, many falsely claim the debate is about who should get more power: The government, or big health care companies.
But Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute said there's another way.
"It doesn't have to be more power to the government or more power to the HMOs," he said. "It could be power to the people."
He's right. Only by expanding consumer choice, freeing people to spend their own money, and unshackling the free market can America save its ailing health care system. |
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0206/libsolutions.html |
|
|
| tupsox |
Amen, Shakka.
I don't think anything that comes at someone else's expense, like health care, should be a "right".
"Rights" are things like being able to: (1)say what you want, own (2)property, (3)go where you want provided it doesnt violate 2, and so on. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tupsox
Amen, Shakka.
I don't think anything that comes at someone else's expense, like health care, should be a "right".
"Rights" are things like being able to: (1)say what you want, own (2)property, (3)go where you want provided it doesnt violate 2, and so on. |
I see. So you and Shakka believe the quality of life is not equal amongst everyone? Those who cannot afford the same quality of life as the affluent should not ever be given that opportunity?
What's that Animal Farm saying go?
"All animals are created equal, but some more than others." |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I do agree with both Shakka and the Libertarian party's ideas. There is one problem I see however with their reasoning, and that is the current increasing cost of medicine. No matter how you want to look at it, medicine is more expensive now, procedurally, than it was in the 60's. Medicine is very technology based, but the catch is, whereas in most fields, advances in technology make things cheaper (computer chips, tv's, etc.), advances in medical technology make things more expensive. An MRI is more expensive than a CT is more expensive than an X-ray, etc. So, if a doctor desides more expensive technology is required, things are going to be more costly than before that technology was available. And on top of that, patients demand "cutting edge" technology in their treatment. I hope that makes sense.
As far as Shakka is saying...I see medical care as a technology, and as long as we aren't "entitled" to cars or tv's, I don't see why we are entitled to medical care. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I see. So you and Shakka believe the quality of life is not equal amongst everyone? Those who cannot afford the same quality of life as the affluent should not ever be given that opportunity?
What's that Animal Farm saying go?
"All animals are created equal, but some more than others." |
You callin' me a pig, old man?!?:p |
|
|
| tupsox |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I see. So you and Shakka believe the quality of life is not equal amongst everyone? Those who cannot afford the same quality of life as the affluent should not ever be given that opportunity?
What's that Animal Farm saying go?
"All animals are created equal, but some more than others." |
I'm generally hesitant to dignify such idiocy with a response, but....where did I say anything about denying opportunity? I'm just saying, as Neo Phono and Shakka have said, that merely being born doesn't entitle you to the highest-tech expensive health care. It does, however, entitle you to speak, to own property, and so forth.
Nice Orwell quote, I assume you're probably the one between us that supports Affirmative Action? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tupsox
I'm generally hesitant to dignify such idiocy with a response, |
Then don't.
But since you're having such an "inner" conflict as to whether or not I or anyone else here deserves your clarification, I must say I'm absolutely overjoyed by your desire to enthrall us with your acumen.
| quote: | | but....where did I say anything about denying opportunity? I'm just saying, as Neo Phono and Shakka have said, that merely being born doesn't entitle you to the highest-tech expensive health care. It does, however, entitle you to speak, to own property, and so forth. |
By stating that you agree with Shakka that healthcare shouldn't be a "right", and utilizing your definition of "right", you directly imply that healthcare is therefore not a right.
I disagree with your limited definition of "right". As it states in our Declaration, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These are inalienable rights that are not given to everyone, because not everyone does not have the opportunity to obtain these rights on equal footing.
To me, that is wrong. Within that right of "life", I believe it directly involves the right to treatment of health. To me, if everyone is not given this opportunity to obtain at least minimal good health standards (provided they don't it up by smoking, etc.), then we do not have equal rights.
| quote: | | Nice Orwell quote, I assume you're probably the one between us that supports Affirmative Action? |
Well, so does Bush (just not quotas). Your point and how it relates to the healthcare issue at hand? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
To me the right for healthcare, the right to education and right to own property etc is equally worth.
Shakka:
To motivate your right is not the easiest, it will finally come down to basic view of life. You will argue about that everyone should had the right own what he earn, meanwhile i will argue that everyone should have a right to life, and an equal opportunity to go on in life.
But if you are up for it, sure i will too :D |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I don't think the debate should be whether health care is a right.
It isn't.
Neither is social security, but we have that. And neither is paying taxes, but we have those too.
The debate should really be focused on how this government choses to provide a minimum net for its society.
Although healthcare is not a right, it most defintely is a positive thing for most people in society to have. Just like social security. And although I might despise that 15% of my paycheck is going to a fund I will never see, I enjoy that thought much better than the though of having to witness a great depression during my lifetime.
In this regard, it is just as important to have a health 'net' for our poor, elderly, etc, so we don't have anyone dying in the streets. The USA does has achieved this net (so we aren't even debating this point) - no one is dying in the streets of America because they can't afford healthcare.
The real question is how do we go about doing it? Right now this net has been cast so large that it has forced the government, and the private citizen (either via insurance or his own pocket) a huge amount of money. More than in history.
The issue with the healthcare system in the USA is not about the poor. The poor have excellent healthcare and it is affordable. The issue is about the American class - the middle class.
The middle class always had health care, it had superb health care. And it never payed for it out of pocket - well not directly anyhow. They would pay health insurance, and health insurance would cover almost all of the tab.
The only thing that has changed over the past 10 years is that the middle class is still paying health insurance, now though at back-breaking rates, and these insurance companies are covering less and less of your expensives. So while paying the companies 100% more than you would have ten years ago, they are covering only 50% of your expensive, instead of almost all as they used to.
This isn't effecting the middle class either. No one is dying. But medical cost are driving many into debt, and many into bankruptcy (medical costs is the 2nd highest caust of bankruptcy in the USA). To most of us it is a nusiane, we have been used to getting good health car for cheap, and now were forced to pay for it. Many of us can, we just don't want to. And its fine, I understand that.
The question than is, since everyone basically needs health care anyone (whether they will do it via insurance, via government, or via their own funds) they'll need it.
So if everyone in the nation needs it, and is paying for it one way or the other. I am tempted to start thinking it simply will be a good idea for the government instead of the insurance company to take 5-15% of your paycheck, and cover all of us. |
|
|
|
|
