|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| As long as our individual liberties aren't infringed upon, I have no problem with a servant government putting our tax dollars to work. |
Errr... tax impedes civil liberties. So you don't have a problem in certain cirumcumstances: army, police = good; doctors = bad?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
visitorq "the public is not the same as the state"
- in a functioning democracy this is exactly what the state is - a representation of the public will. |
So you support slavery then? Who do you think voted in Hitler? In the end, all the power goes to those with their on the levers in government. |
So you don't believe in democracy visitorq? Fair enough, what system of governance do you support? Or are you an anarchist (yes, that's the free market taken to the extreme) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FredDaSked
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Location: Within You, Without You
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the laws of physics, philosophy and, well, law, no one can make a public option out of private choice. How can the threat of 'everyone has to have insurance' be an 'option'--those of you who are English teachers (and others)? It's right to offer insurance for cars, health, life, etc., but not to mandate it--even for drivers. Consequences should be consequences.
Do you think that if car insurance were not mandatory--and it's not in every state--, rates would begin to suffer the same healthy market fluctuations as other commodities? Would, and do, drivers without insurance drive any less safely or become less able to see the benefit of not getting into trouble or ruining other people's lives? Do insured drunk drivers do any less damage on the road?
But to focus on health insurance, many who would eventually decide to get some sort of health care in some capacity will reassess their needs in order to oppose being forced to pay for a certain minimum level. Wouldn't they? Because, as I've read here, this would be a 'premium-supported' public option.
And, concerning the US, there are already such state-run 'public options' and Medicare, supporting the most at-risk groups. Anything the government adds to the mix is just overkill and overburden. It has always seemed that insurance is one of those niche markets that, to succeed as a business venture trying to appeal to everyone, has to find ways to incorporate the capitalist ideal, and to be incorporated.
I would not buy into anything mandatory that I might eventually choose for myself or not, if I didn't need it. Included in those millions who at any one time are going uninsured are those who don't need to be insured and don't want to be. It's unfair to imply that everyone uninsured is a 'poor soul', as if insurance were medicine itself. if it were, it would be a drug that far too many already abuse and that puts up with the reform cries of many a hypochondriac. But the industry stresses the implication for profit and the government in its effort to promote bandwagonism (and for profit). That's all I ever call a public option on anything--bandwagoneering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| As long as our individual liberties aren't infringed upon, I have no problem with a servant government putting our tax dollars to work. |
Errr... tax impedes civil liberties. So you don't have a problem in certain cirumcumstances: army, police = good; doctors = bad? |
I accept taxes allowed under the Constitution. I strongly reject the right of government to impose personal income tax, however (the revenue of which is all handed over the privately owned Fed banking cartel as interest payments on the fraud money they lend our corrupt government).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
visitorq "the public is not the same as the state"
- in a functioning democracy this is exactly what the state is - a representation of the public will. |
So you support slavery then? Who do you think voted in Hitler? In the end, all the power goes to those with their on the levers in government. |
So you don't believe in democracy visitorq? Fair enough, what system of governance do you support? Or are you an anarchist (yes, that's the free market taken to the extreme). |
Anarchist? Of course not. Have you ever read the US Constitution? Do you understand what it entails?
We live in a Republic, with a Constitution that guarantees our personal liberties. It is all written out, and quite comprehensive (and universal). The function of our government is to defend the Constitution, and NOT to impose majority (mob) rule over personal liberty. Make sense? This is why it's illegal to lynch black people, etc. etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Government run health care, whether a "public option" or "single payer" will ultimately cost far more than private insurance. |
Right now almost 50 million people cannot afford private insurance.
What do you propose be done about them? Is a certain proportion being unable to afford it for having a free market in health care?
is it your position that if government were to get out of the health care business completely that costs would go down and hence care/insurance become more affordable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| No, 'the will of the masses' is merely direct democracy. The masses want something? They'll get it. |
That's true... and scary. |
Hmm...I think you may have added a word to my quote...seems a little dishonest. |
If you are truly unaware of the fact that I specifically emboldened the part I altered, then let this statement be an acknowledgment of that change. You are now free to address the reason I did that.
| Quote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I think the majority of American citizens can't be trusted to make a responsible choice directly, and neither did our founding fathers. |
HAHA... yea, the founding fathers thought citizens couldn't decide their own future. Ummm...no. The whole reason for the founding of the U.S.A. was for people's rights. America is meant to be the city on the hill, the one true society on earth. If you can't trust its own citizens who exactly are you gonna trust?
Democracy (yes, rule mostly by the majority) is exactly why America was consituted (literally). Escape from monarchy anyone? |
America was founded as a representative democracy. That's why institutions like the electoral college were created. If the founding fathers had wanted a direct democracy, they would have created one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama, fresh from raising awareness on health care and education with his "soaring rhetoric", is preparing to give a Bush style "Mission Accomplished" speech on the economy:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/09/guest-post-obama-to-make-a-major-address-on-the-financial-crisis-on-monday.html
| Quote: |
One has to wonder if the great Speech Organizer will actually say anything that is worthy of the adjective, �major.�
Someone has possibly told him that if he makes speeches often, it will reassure the people of his country, in the manner of Franklin Roosevelt�s �fireside chats� from the 1930�s.
This sort of remedy wears thin quickly if one has nothing of substance or new to say. Roosevelt had a great flair for oratory, but first and foremost he was a man of substance and of action, like him or not. He was an experienced governor, and knew how to lead by action and example, as well as by words.
It also appears that he wishes to �send a message� to the G20 about their upcoming meeting at the end of September. He is setting the tone, as he most recently did before the Congress with regard to his health care reforms.
President Obama may seem to many to be a man only of words, of rhetoric, treading lightly on the status quo especially when dealing with the corporate funders of his political party, the banks and the health corporations. This is a great obstacle to his Presidency.
He has perhaps another six months to change this perception, or deliver his Party to a serious setback in the 2010 mid-term elections.
In the meanwhile, gold and silver appear to be an attractive hedge against incompetence. |
He would be wise to tone down any "we saved the economy" nonsense.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bank-china-representative-real-economic-crisis-just-starting
| Quote: |
Interview with Zhu Min, Bank of China Vice President:
Q. Is overconfidence the biggest risk to the recovery?
A. It's not only overconfidence, it's overmyopic: Wall Street feels the crisis never happened. It seems to me the financial crisis is not over yet, but it has stabilized from a cliff drop. That's one thing. The real economic crisis is just starting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Government run health care, whether a "public option" or "single payer" will ultimately cost far more than private insurance. |
Right now almost 50 million people cannot afford private insurance.
What do you propose be done about them? Is a certain proportion being unable to afford it for having a free market in health care?
is it your position that if government were to get out of the health care business completely that costs would go down and hence care/insurance become more affordable? |
The issues of health care and health insurance involve many elements and many issues which are all mixed up, seldom discussed as separate components of a problem that can only be delt with by understanding and resolving each of the components.
1) First off, the US has the best health care in the world. We know this because rich people and powerful government officials from around the world come to the US to get the best treatment. We know this because Canada and Europe rely on the US to provide them with the best medical technology, medicine and methods. We know this because without the US system, the national health care systems of the rest of the world would collapse - they would no longer receive subsidized medicines from the US, they would no longer have advancing technology without investment costs, and they would have nowhere for the rich and middle class to escape to when they cannot get treatment due to rationing and waiting lists under national health care at home.
2) The cost of health care in the US is more than double its real cost due to the effects of government regulation and mandates.
Health providers are forced to meet and follow rules made by legislatures and regulators who haven't got a clue about health care. The unnecessary proceedures and paperwork, tests and treatments have doubled the cost without increasing care provided.
3) The cost of health care in the US has been driven up by excess demand caused by a system that encourages overconsumption of scarce medical resources for unnecessary visits. This is because we have a system that uses 3rd party payments for costs that should be borne by the patient.
In other words, the US "insurance" sysem covers items that are just expenses and should not be covered.
Imagine automobile insurance that included coverage for running out of gas - a free emergency fill up on the side of the road. The result would be that thousands of people would run out of gas every day and wait by the side of the road for a fill up. The costs of gasoline and delivery would cause auto insurance to double and double again.
We've done the same with health insurance.
4) Insurance should only cover treatment for major injuries and illnesses. This kind of coverage is not allowed by the government. The insurance the government has forced the industry to offer, and the consumer to buy, costs 10 times what real insurance would cost, even with the doubling of prices caused by the regulation of health providers.
5) The Income Tax, which is evil and still unconstitutional despite the 16th amendment, has killed the possibility of portable, "whole-life" health insurance.
Workers and business entered into a deal with the devil, by using pretax dollars for health insurance. Since HI is treated as a tax-free fringe benefit of a good job, businesses were able to pay workers more at less cost. The net after tax value of HI was much greater than the tax-free cost to the employer. But, employer based HI ends when a worker is no longer employed. Sometimes coverage would continue after retirement, but not always.
With no income tax, this would have never happened. It is not automatically necessary, nor is it cheaper to have group policies. If there were no after tax benefit, companies would have never offered HI as a fringe. Each individual would prefer to have a "whole-life" HI plan that could never be cancelled, coverage guaranteed, and rates levelled over a lifetime. The consumer could buy the kind of policy that best meets his needs.
Group insurance provided through our empolyers is not in our interest any more than fleet purchase of cars would be. The HR dept that shops for an insurance policy cannot possibly take into account the needs and preferences of all of the workers covered. They don't try to do so.
Insurance companies in a free market would have to offer quality, "whole-life" health insurance, that is always portable, never cancellable, available from pre-birth through death, that covers only major medical, is guaranteed to pay out, has the lowest cost and best coverages.
This is what we would have today with a free market based, income tax free economic system.
6) Health care is made scarce and much more costly by limiting the number of health care providers. We need to allow more people to train as doctors, nurses, medical technicians and other types of health service providers.
We need to allow more people to set up shop to provide health services in their limited areas of expertise without rules or licenses. This will make specialize care available to anyone at low cost.
We need to open up the whole health care market to the free market.
7) Insurance companies are so regulated as to make it nearly impossible to start one. The lack of new entrants, to what should be a relatively simple business to operate, is due to impossible government rules and regulations. Insurers' costs grow exponentially without adding new services or coverages due to the government.
We need to end all regulation and rules for insurance companies. This would massively unwind the crazy costs, allow new entrants and competition and make possible the issuance of real insurance that only covers real major health issues.
7) Most of the 49 million uninsured can actually afford HI even at the current government created price of 10 to 20 times the actual market rate. People choose to spend their money on other things instead. They prefer to be careful and assume the risk of being uninsured.
It is actually reasonable for a healthy, careful person to live a cautious, healthy lifestyle, avoid exposure to disease, avoid high-risk accident and injury prone activities, avoid tobacco and alcohol and assume the risk of being uninsured. A healthy, single male between the ages of 20 and 40 has little chance of needing the high priced HI in today's America. It is smart not to buy HI. Instead, work, life a careful frugal life, save and invest and you will emerge half a million dollars ahead on the other end of your life.
Today's health insurance problem is really a set of problems all created and exacerbated by the actions of the US government and the various State governments. It is a problem made by socialism. More socialism will make it worse.
The answer is to repeal the income tax, deregulate health providers, deregulate health insurers, and encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own health, lifestyle choices, health maintenance, and health insurance. This would encourage "whole-life" health insurance at 1/10th to 1/20th of the current price, available to all from before birth. Policies would be cheap, permanent and portable. Health care would be even better, available everywhere (including Walmart and Kmart) and cost less than half of what it does today.
Finally, we would no longer have to, and should not, worry about those who have chosen to be uninsured. For those who are truly concerned, they can set up private charities to pay for the much reduced health care costs of those who are truly poor or who lost on their choice to be uninsured. It would be far better and cheaper to provide this kind of coverage through private charities. To be sure, the Obamas and the Clintons of this world would not contribute. They only care about creating fascist-socialist institutions to enhance their power bases and personal wealth.
But , for those of us who truly care about the people, the private organizations we can create and fund could take care of those few who are truly needy at a microscopic fraction of the government cost, with no taxes.
*****
(In addition, there are the indirect causes of the health care/HI problem. Poverty, unemployment, slow growth in living standards, the 99% inflationary destruction of the dollar by the FED, the $99 trillion federal government debt as reported by the FED.)
All of our economic and social problems are caused by our fascist-socialist, power mad, out of control government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catchshime
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Location: "I am not born for one corner; the whole world is my native land."
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a thread, what a thread. On an ESL forum of all places. Hey, wait a second, I'm really angry and narrow minded and don't agree with what any of you are saying. All of you...
YOU LIE!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| This pure, "major rules" type of democracy you're talking about never works. Seriously, that's how people like Hitler, Bush, and Obama get into power. |
A few people on this board need to tone down their paranoia and/or hyperventilation. You know most of Europe has government via voter majority?
Maybe the financial system has been hijacked. This doesn't distract from the politcal (social) point that healthcare needs to be addressed.... yes, healthcare is a human right, and currently the U.S.A isn't providing it (whereas Europe is. For 33% less GDP spending).
Mises, why did you cruise into this thread with information absolutely seperate from Obama Healthcare'?
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| America was founded as a representative democracy. |
Democracy - whatever form it takes - tries to represent society. That's its whole point. If you think the U.S.A is representative, why exaclty does Washington state get 2 votes in the Senate..... the same as California that has a hugely bigger population? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| 1) First off, the US has the best health care in the world. We know this because rich people and powerful government officials from around the world come to the US to get the best treatment. |
No, I think this proves the richest people can get the best treatment, you've got a lot of MRI scanners. But, remember 50 million of the poorest people in America don't have coverage - 1/6 of your population. So is it the best for your country?
| ontheway wrote: |
Canada and Europe rely on the US to provide them with the best medical technology, medicine and methods. |
Other countries do research into medicine - you'd be surprised.
| ontheway wrote: |
| without the US system, the national health care systems of the rest of the world would collapse. |
This is your justification for not providing healthcare to your own citizens? Fair enough, thank you for sacrificing yourself for the good of Canada and Europe. I'm thankful.
| ontheway wrote: |
| 2) The cost of health care in the US is more than double its real cost due to the effects of government regulation and mandates. |
With even less regulation would the millions of people uninsured or the thousands of people suffering from rescission, increase or decrease? Even the Republicans are arguing for stricter control of insurance companies. You're behind the times.
| ontheway wrote: |
3) The cost of health care in the US has been driven up by excess demand caused by a system that encourages overconsumption of scarce medical resources for unnecessary visits. |
Ummm... I think this is a Republican argument against Universal Payer. The British can ask for any healthcare they want... we still spend 33% less....
| ontheway wrote: |
| 4) Insurance should only cover treatment for major injuries and illnesses. This kind of coverage is not allowed by the government. The insurance the government has forced the industry to offer, and the consumer to buy, costs 10 times what real insurance would cost, |
Wat? I don't understand. Insurance companies are still making profits right? Anyway, what's a 'minor injury/illness'... like losing your little finger? "Err.. no Sir, that's not covered, try some bleach and a sewing needle."
| ontheway wrote: |
| 5) The Income Tax, which is evil and still unconstitutional despite the 16th amendment, |
Stick to 'the constitution' if you want. Developed countires have income tax - it helps society. I don't mind if you guys want to go back to the Middle Ages by abolishing it - it's your choice, I'm just amazed you don't even think to look at Europe for answers. (p.s. we've been around a little longer than you. Try 2000 years longer)
| ontheway wrote: |
| 6) We need to open up the whole health care market to the free market. |
We agree, why can't the government provide a free market option? According to you free-marketers, the government will never be able to compete... so where's the beef?
| ontheway wrote: |
| 7) Insurance companies are so regulated as to make it nearly impossible to start one.... We need to end all regulation and rules for insurance companies. |
You're ignoring the fact insurance has increasing returns to scale - big companies are more efficient and become bigger. That's exactly why they hold monopolies (monopsynies) in a lot of states. Decreasing regulation actually hinders competition. This is why both parties are looking at anti-trust regulation right now. "End all regulation" - sorry you're deluded: poor people can't afford the insurance for high cost illnesses, that's exactly why they need government help.
| ontheway wrote: |
| 7) Most of the 49 million uninsured can actually afford HI even at the current government created price of 10 to 20 times the actual market rate. People choose to spend their money on other things instead.... A healthy, single male between the ages of 20 and 40 has little chance of needing the high priced HI in today's America. |
That may be true.... but when they get hit by a car and are paraplegic? Nobody's looking after them. Maybe you like giving ignorant Americans the choice. Other coutries prefer to cover them regardless of their uneducated choices. Souce for "most of the 49 million"?
| ontheway wrote: |
| Today's health insurance problem is really a set of problems all created and exacerbated by the actions of the US government and the various State governments. It is a problem made by socialism. More socialism will make it worse. |
How do you explain away European healthcare being better and more socialist?
| ontheway wrote: |
| The answer is to repeal the income tax, deregulate health providers, deregulate health insurers, and encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own health, lifestyle choices, health maintenance, and health insurance. This would encourage "whole-life" health insurance at 1/10th to 1/20th of the current price, available to all from before birth. Policies would be cheap, permanent and portable. Health care would be even better, available everywhere (including Walmart and Kmart) and cost less than half of what it does today. |
Do you not realise companies try to maximise profit? I'd love to see any evidence for any of your claims. Also, you realise if healthcare is portable nationwide that means the 'Fed' getting involved? ... but you're against that type of social nationalsim right?
| ontheway wrote: |
| Finally, we would no longer have to, and should not, worry about those who have chosen to be uninsured. |
I know you don't like society.... but people dying in the street?... really? Wow... that's pretty sick...
| ontheway wrote: |
| All of our economic and social problems are caused by our fascist-socialist, power mad, out of control government. |
Fascist? Errr.... ummmm..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ontheway, it is simple. It isn't because the USA is subsidizing other health care systems. I honestly think that's unproven and a bunch of hot air.
No, the health care system is regulated in dumb ways. The GOP, for all its faults, does have one good idea when it comes to health care: let companies compete beyond state borders. It would be an easy (and FREE) way to open up competition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The United States does not have the best health care in the world. The United States has the best medical technology in the world. Medical technology is important and valuable, but it's only a small part of overall health care. Unlike wealthy individuals who come here from other nations, Mr. Walmart Greeter probably isn't getting the benefit of that advanced technology, and if he does, he'll be massively in debt because of it.
Reducing the role the Insurance Industry plays in our health care system also need not reduce the rate at which medical technology is developed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wanna know what wealthy individuals from developed countries come here. I'm very skeptical of that claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is obvious from the obtuse replies that you have failed to read and comprehend the difference between the health delivery system and the payment system, and the various problems that come from outside both the health system and the payment system, especially taxes and regulations imposed by the Federal and State governments on both the health providers and the insurance companies.
Try to read it again.
The Income Tax is THE primary reason we have cancellable, non-transferable, non-portable, term health insurance. This problem would not exist if there were no income tax.
As the Income Tax causes numerous other problems and is still unconstitutional despite the 16th amendment, repeal of the income tax is a must to resolve this and numerous other economic issues, including: fairness, economic expansion, retirement planning, job growth and raising living standards.
| Quote: |
5) The Income Tax, which is evil and still unconstitutional despite the 16th amendment, has killed the possibility of portable, "whole-life" health insurance.
Workers and business entered into a deal with the devil, by using pretax dollars for health insurance. Since HI is treated as a tax-free fringe benefit of a good job, businesses were able to pay workers more at less cost. The net after tax value of HI was much greater than the tax-free cost to the employer. But, employer based HI ends when a worker is no longer employed. Sometimes coverage would continue after retirement, but not always.
With no income tax, this would have never happened. It is not automatically necessary, nor is it cheaper to have group policies. If there were no after tax benefit, companies would have never offered HI as a fringe. Each individual would prefer to have a "whole-life" HI plan that could never be cancelled, coverage guaranteed, and rates levelled over a lifetime. The consumer could buy the kind of policy that best meets his needs.
Group insurance provided through our empolyers is not in our interest any more than fleet purchase of cars would be. The HR dept that shops for an insurance policy cannot possibly take into account the needs and preferences of all of the workers covered. They don't try to do so.
Insurance companies in a free market would have to offer quality, "whole-life" health insurance, that is always portable, never cancellable, available from pre-birth through death, that covers only major medical, is guaranteed to pay out, has the lowest cost and best coverages.
This is what we would have today with a free market based, income tax free economic system. |
Government regulation of health providers
| Quote: |
2) The cost of health care in the US is more than double its real cost due to the effects of government regulation and mandates.
Health providers are forced to meet and follow rules made by legislatures and regulators who haven't got a clue about health care. The unnecessary proceedures and paperwork, tests and treatments have doubled the cost without increasing care provided. |
In other words, in the US, the total cost of health care is more than double just because of regulations on doctors, nurses, hospitals etc. That is health care providers.
This means that, without looking at insurance or the payment system, we could reduce the cost by half just by deregulating the providers. This would give us better care at lower cost. Already Walmart is moving into this area with equal or better care and lower prices, and deregulation of the providers we would see prices fall by over half, expansion of services, an increase in the number of providers and the number of locations and a 50% reduction in insurance cost.
Absolutely, the US has the best health care in the world. This is not in dispute by any intelligent observer.
| Quote: |
| International patients spend $3 billion a year on medical care in the U.S. Hospitals around the country are in a race to tap the deep pockets of wealthy foreigners. |
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/30/pm-international-patients/
| Quote: |
Jackson Memorial opened its wood-paneled international welcome center two years ago. The staff arranges airport pickup, discounted hotel stays, and appointments with specialists.
To get into its private quarters, you need to ring a doorbell.
Another Miami hospital, Baptist, treated 12,000 foreign patients from 100 countries last year, more than any other hospital in the region. Paul Lopez came to Baptist for cancer treatment from the Caribbean island of St. Croix. He says with Miami just two hours away, he rarely sees a doctor on the island |
.
This does not mean that every American is a consumer of these high quality services. Most people are healthy. Some choose not to be treated even when they have the resources or insurance. Some choose not to buy insurance even though they can afford it.
But the sad fact is, this problem is caused by the government and they have no plan to fix it:
If we deregulated the providers, the price would fall by half so that very few would be left who cannot afford health care, even without looking at the insurance companies.
We also need to deregulate consumer choice.
As individuals we do not benefit from insurance that covers every little cut and sniffle. Minor conditions and health maintenance are best paid for out of pocket. They are expenses and not insurable risks. If you understand the concept of what insurance is, then you realize that expenses are not insurable.
Individuals can provide for their own minor care and avoid the necessity of such care by taking responsibility for themselves. Everyone should pay out of pocket for minor health consumption items.
| Quote: |
3) The cost of health care in the US has been driven up by excess demand caused by a system that encourages overconsumption of scarce medical resources for unnecessary visits. This is because we have a system that uses 3rd party payments for costs that should be borne by the patient.
In other words, the US "insurance" sysem covers items that are just expenses and should not be covered.
Imagine automobile insurance that included coverage for running out of gas - a free emergency fill up on the side of the road. The result would be that thousands of people would run out of gas every day and wait by the side of the road for a fill up. The costs of gasoline and delivery would cause auto insurance to double and double again.
We've done the same with health insurance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is so much nonsense in your response that it would take hours to respond. You need to understand terms before you begin:
| Quote: |
| Also, you realise if healthcare is portable nationwide that means the 'Fed' getting involved? . |
The "FED" means the Federal Reserve, not the Federal Government. As evil the Fed has been for the US and the whole world, its part in health care is limited to the deleterious effects of inflating the currency, causing the first and second Great Depressions and all the recessions since 1913, massively reducing economic growth, lowering the living standards of the poor and middle classes, and robbing the holders of dollar denominated assets of 99% of their wealth through inflation since 1913.
The role of the Fed has been indirect. By increasing the number of poor, they have increased the number of people who have difficulty paying for health care or buying insurance.
However, it was the Federal and State governments that caused the price of health care services to double directly through regulation, double again through overconsumption, and the price of insurance for major medical coverage to increase ten fold on top of the cost of services due to regulation of insurance offerings and limitations on entry.
FYI: The term "the Feds" (note the "s") refers neither to the Federal Reserve nor the Federal Government per se, but generally refers to Federal Law enforcement officers of various agencies and departments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
