If you are 25 years old, underemployed, and in good health, are you going to buy health insurance if it costs you several thousand dollars a year? Well, how about if the price of not buying it is a substantial fine? More importantly, how are you going to feel about the political party that forced you to spend the little money that you have on insurance you don’t really feel like you need?
Of course, even 25 year-olds can get sick or have some kind of accident that requires ruinously expensive health care. That is why we want them all to have coverage and to pay for it to the best of their ability. But, you have to do two things. You have to make it affordable, and you have to give them the option to buy non-for-profit insurance. No one wants to pay for insurance company profits and bonuses, but that is especially true of the people who have declined to buy insurance out of choice rather than necessity.
Reason #834 for < whispering > socialized health care.
it is as if max went out of his way to write the worst bill he could conceive.
baucus didn’t write anything, k street did…they’re revising it as we speak.
Max Buacus and K street might as well be the same thing. he’s a puppet, with a hand jammed so far up his ass when he opens his mouth you can see the CEO of Wellpoint’s wedding ring.
Socialized health care will cause price increases in the long term, just as government intervention has caused prices to increase to what they are currently.
Allowing insurance companies to compete nationwide will bring down prices immediately. (And this will eliminate a government created problem.)
Equalizing the tax benefit for purchasers of health care will create more pricing transparency. (And this will eliminate a government created problem.)
The government created the high prices we now experience. Let’s remove the government created problems. There it is: less cost without the billion dollar price tag.
That doesn’t follow.
Paying doctors a fixed salary rather than a fee for service will lower costs dramatically. Including all the young healthy people on the rolls, as well as eliminating emergency room first-care will increase revenues, spread risk, and lower the cost of treatment.
What do you mean by, “it doesn’t follow”? Those are two primary causes of price distortions.
You bring up a third. The government doesn’t currently determine the pay structures of doctors, so I wouldn’t suggest it as a first step. Let hospitals and health systems deal with this extremely touchy matter that’s best left out of the hands of angry mobs.
However, with more competition among insurers, you would probably see innovative relationships with providers and physician compensation structures would probably be re-thought.
In any case, we’re talking about a major re-jiggering. Taking one step at a time would be prudent.
really? do you actually believe this tripe?
maybe you should turn off the reichwing wurlitzer playing in your head and look at the reality of the situation. you could start with these:
competition lacking among private health insurance companies
PRIVATE INSURANCE MERGERS LEAD TO NEAR-MONOPOLIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
I agree that there are monopolies. There are a few in each state. Allow insurance companies to compete across lines, and guess what you get: competition.
“l agree that there are monopolies”
well, that’s a start l suppose. but do please enlighten us re: your inference that health insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines. links would be helpful, perhaps even adding some substance to your pseudo debate.
it is my distinct impression that companies such as aetna, wellpoint, kaiser permanente, nationwide…no pun intended…et al, are indeed, nationwide.
either you are willfully ignorant of the situation, or you are a troll. regardless, you are becoming increasingly boorish with your straw man constructs and sophism.
perhaps you should revert to lurking here and spend more of you time with your compatriots in freeperville.
g’day
He’s referring to the insurance industry wish for “competition”, which is code for gutting state insurance protection.
Evidently it has been on the conservative and industry wish list for years and made it into the Baucus plan:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/9/122529/5805
Health insurance is an incredibly profitable business. In a capitalist society, that usually means that new entrants to the market attempt to take their share of the profits.
But that hasn’t happened. Why?
Even the companies you mention can not grow organically into new markets and so they must grow through acquisition. Why?
What do you credit for maintaining the monopolies positions? Is it the business that just can’t accept paying lower premiums for their employees? Is it the hospital that likes being the bitch of its state’s Blue?
Obviously there is something standing in the way of new market entrants. And yes, amazingly enough, some people are pointing to the entities charged with the regulation of new entrants and all existing insurance companies in their market, the states.
Yes, “innovation” like the banks and mortgage brokers did with poor people during the housing bubble, right?
That’s a totally different problem that was also largely influenced by government entities: The FED and FNMA.
You really like to flaunt your ignorance, no?
The ‘innovative’ financial instruments were created by greedy traders and enabled by the staffing revolving door between the administration and Goldman Sachs. Oversight of their activities had been cut back over many years, but especially under Bush.
Actually, I’m extremely well versed on the subject of money and banking, and the history of our financial system. You?
Looking purely at mortgage backed securities (I happen to know the people who created the first mortgage backed securities) or “oversight” of the product is nice but would cause you to miss the total scope of the problem which is much more systemic in nature.
Looking at money supply and its management/control in a broader context would get you a much better picture of reality. It’s complicated. Can you handle it?
Actually, I’m extremely well versed on the subject of money and banking
There is nothing in yur argumentation that bears this out.
And your next paragraph simply says nothing.
I loked back at your comment history (Steven D’s story the other day) and there is nothing honest about your argumentation. I’m done with you – taking brendan’s advice above.
I’d rather watch the soccer game which is on.
You’re funny. I’m up for the discourse. But a review of money and banking is a pretty serious endeavor.
Did you also write for Sarah Palin? The meaning-free torrent of important-sounding words is familiar.
I’m not a Sarah Palin fan. I’m not a fan of any politicians, though I have occasionally done work for a few.
Do you really find me so vapid?
Socialized health care will cause price increases in the long term
This is nonsense. The per capita cost of health care in the US is basically the double of what it is in western Europe or Canada, where single payer is the way it is organized. The profit motive must be removed from providing people the health care they need and deserve. Even the ‘public option’ is inadequate in my opinion.
It’s not nonsense. Our government created pricing distortions. That’s undeniable. Let’s remove the distortions so that we can better understand the problem.
So, are you against paying doctors anything to care for other people?
So, are you against paying doctors anything to care for other people?
Where did I say that?
Doctors should be paid well, but the insurance companies must be gutted if it were up to me. I realize that single payer has been totally taken off the table and even a public option is iffy now. Private insurance (for profit) should be limited to supplementary policies for non-essential treatments.
“The profit motive must be removed from providing people the health care they need and deserve.”-ask
Doctors getting paid amounts to profits. But now you’re saying doctors should be paid well.
Health systems are large and complicated organizations that require significant management expertise. Are those managers allowed to be paid too?
Paid well? What does that mean? Who decides? What are the criteria? With an absence of market driven cost data, what cost information will be the base of decisions?
Don’t be obtuse.
Corporations generate profit.
(Individual) professionals (lawyers, doctors, etc.)charge fees. If I am happy with your service, I may be happy to pay a higher fee than to another professional.
Managers and administrators should be paid competitive salaries, no more – no less. If they are not happy, let them seek employment in another industry. Obscene bonuses must be eliminated.
Who owns and controls the corporations? Droids?
You know, lawyers, doctors etc. most often utilize a corporate structure. I do too. We’re the same people, we just have a different tax status.
How much do you make? And what is your job description. I want to make sure you’re not overpaid.
Another non-sequitur.
You’ve already shown yourself as a troll, now you’re getting pathetic and unpalatable. No need to pile on.
Good night.
how is it a non-sequitur?
That’s what you are missing.
You want to pay a doctor to be a doctor, not pay him to offer up as many services as he can get away with.
You want to pay for your care, including the cost of compensating your doctor for his time, but you don’t want to pay extra so the senior executives at Aetna can put gas in the boats. Why is this hard to understand? Who in their right mind wants to pay more in health care costs just so some corporate officer who plays no direct role in the your care can get filthy rich? And why give him the right and the incentive to deny you the care he’s promised you in exchange for your premium?
You’d have to be high on Glenn Beck to see any benefit to yourself in that situation.
dude, again: stop arguing with the dining room table, which is exactly what g is.
The table is useful in chasing after windbagger agitprop to see where it goes to hide when confronted with reality. Sort of like our own private crash test dummy.
And it’s always useful to contrast ignorance and idiocy with reality and facts.
I agree to an extent… but after having a long exchange with one of these people, i realized that if you’re trying to change their mind or educate them, it’s a fruitless exercise. they’ve decided the sky is plaid, and nothing you do to prove that it’s blue will do any good.
Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between profit and wages should really keep his economic wisdom to himself.
Unfortunately, you cannot point to any single country in the world, past or present, where such a system that we have now works.
On the other hand, universal health-care as institutionalized in various forms in the UK and throughout Europe as well as Asian countries like Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore has a history of success. More than 50 years of proven success, costing much less as a percentage of GDP with similar or better outcomes compared to the US.
You want us to acknowledge that your free market fantasy will work with a few tweaks. Not going to happen.
Is it that unrealistic to fix the government’s mistakes before we allow them to throw billions of dollars at the industry?
It is not ‘government mistakes’ – it’s a relentless lobby and corrupt, spineless politicians fuelled by the for-profit insurance companies. How hard is it to get that?
Agreed. So now where going to handle them all of the country’s health care $$$? That makes tons of sense.
Did you read my comment?
Single payer would bypass lobbyists and corrupt politicians.
No, he didn’t. Don’t feed the troll.
And create a massive monopoly that is not accountable to the person paying the bills, the taxpayer.
you want a health care monopoly run by the government? Take Medicare.
Do you think politicians who mess with Medicare are unaccountable? I think the taxpayers hold them accountable.
The definition of representative democracy is that the people hold their politicians accountable. Why do right-wingers insist on arguing that government officials and politicians are not accountable?
What I think you mean is that you can’t take your business elsewhere if you are unhappy with your service. That’s actually not true about Obama’s plan. He wants to create a national exchange, which would eliminate regional monopolies, thereby increasing your choice. One option in that exchange would be a public non-profit insurer. If you like paying for bonuses and yacht-fuel, you can keep your crappy AETNA insurance. That’s your choice.
Nobody fucks with AARP, B-man. You know that. They’re the only people who vote.
The stupid is strong with this one.
Aren’t you on the government’s payroll?
Yes. And?
Surprise surprise, a government employee selling more government. Who would have guessed?
Yes, and as you’d imagine, I, a government economist at a statistics agency, have a huge interest in expanding agencies that have nothing to do with my career.
But it wouldn’t be the good ol’ Misesian clown show without the baseless attacks.
There’s power in numbers.
Didn’t you start this sub-thread by calling me stupid?
Ah, I see. So it couldn’t possibly my assessment based upon the facts of the issue. It must be my being one of those evil bureaucrats that makes me support socialized health care.
Yes, I began the subthread saying, “The stupid is strong with this one,” because you’ve clearly made no effort to examine the issue beyond the mindless babbling of Cato, AEI and the other winger welfare institutions. You’ve done well to back up my initial assessment ever since.
What facts have you mentioned?
My background is a bit deeper than that. For one thing I have thousands of hours of experience in audit and consulting work on 2 major health systems.
As usual with you, this is another load of hot air unsupported by anything real except free-market fundie boilerplate. Nobody’s preventing insurancecos from competing. The nature of insurance doesn’t allow for real competition because buyers don’t know what they’re paying for until it’s too late. Government-imposed standards would ameliorate part of the pig-in-a-poke problem, but not enough to end up with an adequate system.
The bottom line is, there’s no reason for health insurance companies to exist. Their only function is to market product and deny as many claims as possible. They serve no rational function.
Europe, Japan, Canada and the rest of the developed world unanimously refute your claim about the cost of socialized medicine, but you’ve already dismissed the evidence as not comparable because America is so exceptional. Pathetic.
State governments prevent insurance companies from competing.
Have you ever purchased health insurance for an organization. I do. I’ve been doing it for 11 years.
Health insurance companies allow their clients to mitigate risk. Apparently that’s of some value to people because lots of people buy health insurance.
Now get back to the circle jerk.
Lots of people use meth and pay protection money too. So what.
And BTW, if you don’t like the “circle jerk”, well, nobody’s begging you to stay around and witness it.
It’s entertaining. And somewhat interesting. Like with all dogmatic groups (political, religious etc.) there is a certain disdain for knowledge here. I guess I have a curiosity for the cause of it.
I check back in here from time to time to be informed of other perspectives. But find myself more fascinated in the sociological phenomena of people becoming very emotional in superficial, pseudo-logical, dogma-driven discussions. It’s sort of like watching drunk football fans at a sportsbar.
You mean state governments regulate insurance, some more than others, and insurance companies would rather be able to pick which state’s rules to operate under, i.e. pick the state with the least regulation.
Let me fix your equation for you:
Competition = Less Regulation
The way it works now, an insurance company donates campaign funds to their favorite politicians for a right to operate relatively unmolested in a market.
I wouldn’t call that regulation.
I largely agree with you on that point.
They are not regulating. Just as with the banking industry they are pretending to regulate when all they’re really doing is transferring wealth to their corporate patrons. But, the little consumer protection from predatory insurance practices do come from state regulation and your argument is in favor of DEREGULATING some of the few substantive protections (even though I concede there is an alternative motive to give favored companies monopolistic protection).
But twiddling around with a broken system isn’t acceptable any more. We need to come up with a sane system that gives us the most bang for our buck. And that ain’t looking to be American Crony Capitalism–American ‘free market’ principles sound good in principle but they don’t work for a developed nation’s health care system.
I don’t want to defend state regulation because that’s weak tea in the first place . . .
Federal single payor is the way to go. Most bang for our bucks.
Yeah, I’m for insurance regulation that’s actually regulation. And that goes for the financial industry as well.
My concern with your proposal is that the Feds take a similar approach to regulation as the states. Donate some $$$ and I’ll give you some regulation, baby.
But that’s our political system. Pay to play.
All right! I’ve got a mental picture of you now: You’re a 32-year-old, small-L libertarian, insurance broker sitting in a cubicle, taking a break from cold calling by looking for a way to bolster the smug conceit of your superiority over others. Hey, you don’t need no stinkin’ circle! You jerk off all by yourself! Why can’t others be as self-reliant as you are? LOL!
Nope.
37.
Modestly successful entrepreneur. Haven’t had a personnel change in my company for 4 years, and I pay for all of my employees health insurance and I match 401 k donations.
Independent (I find the libertarians to be way to into theories… and dungeons and dragons).
Musician.
Fascinated by economics, people, emotional realities.
1 kid, Happy family.
We all jerk off, sjct. But I’ve always valued independent thinking/whacking.
How about an underemployed 23 year old who broke her neck in Canada while uninsured? Nothing like starting out your post-college life with $23K in student loans and $16K in medical bills.
Should add: she’s American, but it happened in Canada. Would have been totally covered had she been a Canadian citizen.
it’s not just 25 year old, healthy young adults, it’s families, the elderly, et al, living at or below the poverty level already. the only solution, which b2 points out using the RAT euphemism, socialized, is universal, single payer health care.
but that’s never been on the table. so we’re destined to get some bs compromise that won’t even take effect until 2013…a bit like zandar1′ deal or no deal series, only this time it’s the insurance companies and big pharma that get the windfall while people continue dying.
Agree, dada, single payer is the only way to go. Let’s cut through the deliberate bull shit foisted upon us by the K-Street crowd and their hired harlots in the republican party and provide a health care plan for all Americans. Every other industrial nation provides such a benefit for its citizenry but here in “the greatest nation on earth” poor people continue to suffer the pains of inadequate health coverage.
America has become an absolute farce; kind of like those idiots at town hall meetings who proclaim their ignorance like a demented ass. It’s time now for the progressives to speak out loud and clearly.
It would piss off a lot of Obama’s base in time for the 2012 election. Writing a check every month will be a constant reminder.
I suspect it will also encourage more young people to participate in the underground economy, so as to stay under the income limits.
It came as a shock to me the other day when I realized that none of these proposed changes will take place until 2013 — after the next election. If the Democrats expect these reforms to be a benefit to citizens, then it is stoopid to defer the gratitude. On the other hand, if they suspect the result will be more insurance company contributions to their campaign coffers in the short-term and outraged resentment from voters in the long-term…
Being uninsured, old and sick, we spent a lot of money on health care last year, a lot of money. If I take those costs and add a $3800 penalty for not buying insurance, the total is still less than we would pay for BC/BS coverage plus co-pays, deductibles, etc.! We would, obviously, choose to pay the penalty. A mandate without affordable options will also create a vast number of outlaws!
A young, healthy independent contractor could possibly go years without being detected until serious injury or sudden illness gets them “caught.” Then, what would the government do? Bankrupt them to the point that they qualify for Medicaid? Put them in a prison hospital? Let them die on the streets?
How do they plan on enforcing a mandate on people who aren’t payroll employees?
Of course, even 25-year-olds can get pregnant and have a child that requires ruinously expensive medical care. One child in my family had more surgeries and hospitalizations before she was 5 than I’ve had in my long life.
When she was born, I was in hospital with a head injury inflicted by a 19-year-old who avoided purchasing the mandatory liability insurance on his car. I happened to have insurance and then everybody started calling me lucky.
Seems like as long as we keep reproducing we ought to have a society that can sustain all of us. While we debate who deserves what, how long before we start hearing about the “class warfare?”
A mandate that siphons more money from the the underpaid, part-timers, and unemployed will be the last straw for American tranquility and for Obama and the Democratic Party.
Seeing what even the best bills out of Congress really entail, I’m coming around to hoping they all fail. This deep change was promoted too fast, with too little leadership and too little time for open debate. The Finance Committee hearings were a travesty and unfortunately set the parameters for discussion in every sector.
Unless Obama does something unthinkable tonight, it’s becoming clear that we should have settled from the start for banning pre-existing condition exclusions in both the selling of policies and payment of claims, and setting up open coverage standards and equalized premiums for all Americans. That would have been a base on which to build something better.
As it is we’re too focused on the “public option”, which is really irrelevant. The real issue is, how is universal coverage to be paid for? This is a financial/tax issue, not a health one. As the “debate” was managed, discussion of the core question was foreclosed by putting “reform” into a “revenue neutral” jail. Health care reform was saddled with issues that have nothing to do with it, and as a result only the weakest and worst options survived for further consideration. It would take tremendous political courage for Obama to propose a whole new view of the issue, but I’m still somewhat optimistic that he’s capable of finding the will to do just that.
I totally agree.
The fear-mongering and pushing for votes without a clear plan or time for consideration was an ineffective approach. It reeked of the Bush administration’s Iraq War sales campaign.
The sooner Obama’s team goes back to the drawing board, the better off we’ll all be.
The root of Obama’s mistake was trying to have a serious discussion with people like you who have no interest in changing anything that keeps their plutocrat clients getting richer. He should have started out with a plan for real socialized medicine instead of thinking he could get honest responses from wingnuts.
That’s funny.
I’m actually interested in reform that works. And I’m not interested in political initiatives that cause the type of wealth destruction that sinks all boats.
But there are costs and benefits to both of these systems. You are largely taking the conservative position, i.e. defending the satus quo. So you’re right, the costs to the health insurance industry would probably (hopefully) be catastrophic to the industry and some 10 million (or more likely 75%) would lose their job. Also, since the American people would have better bargaining power the pay for doctors and other professionals may go down as well as the profit in many drugs. So these industry and people would lose.
so yes. We should acknowledge the costs to adopting single payor.
The benefits on the other hand . . . .
Hoping that 10 million lose a job? I don’t know about that.
I do think that if we all paid cash for our health care services that most of us would save a lot of money. Some people would find themselves in pretty bad situations.
It’s interesting to see what we pay for 20 minutes of a doctor’s time, their admin support and their overhead costs. If healthcare services were priced like professional services, more often than not an office visit would cost $75-150. For most people, for most of their lives, that would allow people to save a couple of thousand bucks a year.
But we buy insurance for the unexpected. And sometimes the unexpected happens.
It’s also interesting to look at where the vast majority of health care expenses are incurred. For most men, well, most men don’t incur that many health care expenses. That’s primarily because in our old age, men die quickly after getting sick. Women tend to hang on longer and require more healthcare. I don’t have a readily available source link on that as the info came from someone who spent his career of buying HR benefits for Fortune 100 companies.
But enough of my asides, keep in mind that money is a powerful motivator for innovators. We benefit from many innovations. Limit the payout, and expect less innovations.
Well, the 10 million jobs grew out of an inherently inefficient system. Funny how conservative don’t mind a little cutting the fat when the fat is manufacturing jobs like auto companies. It will be painful to those many of those jobs but I think our economy will be much more sound if American business and the American family can depend on basic health care for all citizens and delivered to us at a lower cost–more bang for our collective buck. Plus, some of the insurance workers may find a place in the smaller and more efficient government run system 🙂
And you’re right that some people actually use very little health care. But that’s why spreading the costs throughout all of society is the best way to do it. We pool risk and pay throughout our life in taxes and but will still have coverage when we’re poor, without a job, or old.
Some will pay more some will get more in benefits but it is a vastly more fair system.
It’s a fantasy that we can return to the 1950s where people paid out of pocket and costs would return to something people could afford. I saw a blogger I like a lot, Charles Hugh Smith, suggesting such a thing, and while I see the appeal to this magical thinking, I think there is something critical missing in this analysis (he had a cool rate sheet from a hospital from the 1950s or something showing the birth of a child costing a few hundred dollars in today’s dollars).
Agree. agree. agree.
I hope, cost increase or decrease aside, that medical care will probably improve simply because it is now a focal point of our culture.
A friend of mine, an eye surgeon, who is close to retirement has started working on a program to develop best care practices for various medical issues. I think it’s an AMA program (could be wrong). But he was essentially saying that this had never been done at this large of scope. They are taking input from various experts (instead of simply surgeons) and using broader results data to inform decisions that were once only up to surgeons. As a surgeon, he said some of the insights were mind blowing and much better care plans are being developed. He said that the impetus was the medical profession realizing they had to get their shit together.
“10 million (or more likely 75%) would lose their job“.
l find that hard to believe. who are these 10m people? there’s a shortage of qualified medical personnel already. reason would seem to dictate that most, if not all the people, employed directly in the medical industry will not have their positions imperiled by a government single payer, or for that matter, public option policy. the only ones likely to suffer are the parasites associated with the insurance companies.
where’s that factoid [?] coming from?
that fact needs to be checked. I heard an industry defender using it and just used it for illustrative purposes.
I just wanted to acknowledge that one of the costs would be the loss of some insurance industry workers . . . how many . . . and how many wouldn’t be needed in a new system I don’t know.
“I heard an industry defender using it”
then it’s bullshit.
no offense intended, but dude, there’s no way health care reform is going to add 10m people to the rolls of the unemployed.
Gotta admit, I’m kinda sad that if a bunch of them do go unemployed they won’t have to face trying to get health coverage in the “free market” they so assiduously served. Reason number 35 why I don’t qualify as a liberal, I guess.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I bet it is a bullshit number. As Dave points out, the insurance is only one part of the health care industry and I’m not talking about health care providers losing their jobs (although Drs and maybe some others would face more competition and would earn less in fees, etc.).
I was arguing arguendo . . . as in . . .. even assuming a bunch of health INSURANCE workers lose their jobs . . . it’s still a net benefit. The fact these people have health insurance while they can retrain for a different career or find something else is a benefit other people don’t have.
Let’s keep in mind that “health insurance” has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s part of the finance industry that’s done us such damage already. No health insurer has ever applied a bandage or set a bone for any patient. They are to health what the secondary mortgage instrument “innovators” are to housing: high rollers betting on misery and death among the Ones Who Don’t Matter.