4 ms·

The article doesn't do a good job of "proving" its points. The derived catch which makes it HN content is that R&D gets bit hard. My personal opinion, you nee

The article doesn't do a good job of "proving" its points. The derived catch which makes it HN content is that R&D gets bit hard. My personal opinion, you need a two step plan: 1 - outlaw preexisting condition exclusion. Its probably necessary to achieve the rest of the plan. 2 - force all policies to publish per person cost. The current private market segments by negotiating separate deals per company. This has to end in order to have transparent choice amongst providers. Also allows employers to get out of the way. A person, not an employee makes their choice and pays for it. You do the above and you get efficient and open competition. End of story. Well, except: if you choose the policy with less bells and whistles and then when you get cancer switch to the better coverage when you actually do get cancer, it screws things up. Anyone got a solution to this part?

bensummers 17y ago
> Anyone got a solution to this part? A single, government run, national health service, paid for by taxation? Works OK for the rest of the world, and I don't quite buy the "US is subsidising the rest of the world's socialised health services" argument in the article. I read that pharmaceutical marketing spending is more than R&D spending (but still need to find a good source). http://www.google.com/search?&q=pharmaceutical+r%26d+marketing+spending http://www.google.com/search?&q=pharmaceutical+r%26d+mar...
- dantheman 17y ago
  Works OK for the rest of the world isn't a good answer -- the rest of the world doesn't have free speech, and the us constitution which does not provide for the federal government to do anything even remotely close to health care.
  - bensummers 17y ago
    I know the UK has had some pretty bad attacks on civil liberties in the last few years, but I reckon we still have free speech. Quite frankly, as someone who has access to the NHS, I cannot believe how unethically the US handles health care. Surely even a single case of someone being financially ruined as a result of an illness is unacceptable, whether through being "uninsured" or the investigation department of your insurance company denying a claim? As for efficiency of public vs private, here are some costs we don't incur: Marketing of drugs to patients. Claim management staff. Billing to patients. "Investigation departments" of insurance companies. (I'm sure there are more.) Also, it sounds very time consuming to be caught up in the US health system. While we may have delays for non-acute procedures, acute health care is excellent and timely, and all you have to do is turn up at the appointed time.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      The UK is not even close to having free speech: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech" Wow! Only Americans have Free Speech(TM)! </sarcasm> you seem to be using the UK's Hate Speech Laws to prove that the UK doesn't have "free speech". Every country that allows "free speech" sets limits. For example, in the United States, "There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance" reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United... so, a definition of "free speech" has to be looser than "anyone can say anything he wants in any context with full impunity". No country in the world, including the United States, makes such an absolute guarantee. Most democracies (the real ones, not sham ones like in Iran) have "free speech" with boundaries depending on local culture and history.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech, not libel/slander/ordering an execution/shouting fire in a theatre. And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech.
      - plinkplonk 17y ago
        "In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech," exactly so. And by that definition the UK does have free speech. As do a lot of countries. Most of the democracies do. You brought up Hate Speech laws as some kind of free speech exception. I quote "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech". as for, "And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech." that wasn't what the article implied so you can't "agree" ;-). But sure you can have an opinion. You are bringing in some custom vague definition of "free speech" (to claim the USA has some kind of monopoly on free speech) which doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. I am done with this thread. (I notice the article is dead too . reminder to self. Don't feed the troll)
dantheman 17y ago
I know it is not how it is commonly used, but health insurance is supposed to be insurance. So a preexisting condition, already exists... it'd be like purchasing fire insurance after your house burned down -- it does not work. How about this, remove all regulations relating to the medical industry. Let states step in if they feel there are any problems, remove all tax incentives for employer provided health care. Stop medicaid etc.
- bensummers 17y ago
  Healthcare is not optional. Therefore leaving it to the markets is unwise. Would you consider leaving policing to the private sector? Perhaps you could have a system where you have "civil protection" insurance policies, and the company protects you from crime? I'm sure that'd work really well.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Food is not optional, Housing is not optional, Clothing & Protection from the Elements is not optional... Would you leave that to the markets? Most people define government as a monopolization of force, so policing must fall under that category.
    - davidw 17y ago
      Most reasonably wealthy countries leave those things to the markets, with some guaranteed minimums for everyone, provided by the government.
    - bensummers 17y ago
      I am right in thinking that even in the US, no-one will be left to starve or without basic accommodation? If I'm right about that, what's so different about healthcare? In the UK, the government provides the basic healthcare, and then you're free to top it up with private health insurance should you want the bells and whistles. Also, since the private health insurance is competing with good healthcare provided for free at point of delivery, they have a wonderful incentive to provide really good value for money.

bensummers 17y ago

> Anyone got a solution to this part? A single, government run, national health service, paid for by taxation? Works OK for the rest of the world, and I don't quite buy the "US is subsidising the rest of the world's socialised health services" argument in the article. I read that pharmaceutical marketing spending is more than R&D spending (but still need to find a good source). http://www.google.com/search?&q=pharmaceutical+r%26d+marketing+spending http://www.google.com/search?&q=pharmaceutical+r%26d+mar...

dantheman 17y ago
Works OK for the rest of the world isn't a good answer -- the rest of the world doesn't have free speech, and the us constitution which does not provide for the federal government to do anything even remotely close to health care.
- bensummers 17y ago
  I know the UK has had some pretty bad attacks on civil liberties in the last few years, but I reckon we still have free speech. Quite frankly, as someone who has access to the NHS, I cannot believe how unethically the US handles health care. Surely even a single case of someone being financially ruined as a result of an illness is unacceptable, whether through being "uninsured" or the investigation department of your insurance company denying a claim? As for efficiency of public vs private, here are some costs we don't incur: Marketing of drugs to patients. Claim management staff. Billing to patients. "Investigation departments" of insurance companies. (I'm sure there are more.) Also, it sounds very time consuming to be caught up in the US health system. While we may have delays for non-acute procedures, acute health care is excellent and timely, and all you have to do is turn up at the appointed time.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    The UK is not even close to having free speech: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech" Wow! Only Americans have Free Speech(TM)! </sarcasm> you seem to be using the UK's Hate Speech Laws to prove that the UK doesn't have "free speech". Every country that allows "free speech" sets limits. For example, in the United States, "There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance" reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United... so, a definition of "free speech" has to be looser than "anyone can say anything he wants in any context with full impunity". No country in the world, including the United States, makes such an absolute guarantee. Most democracies (the real ones, not sham ones like in Iran) have "free speech" with boundaries depending on local culture and history.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech, not libel/slander/ordering an execution/shouting fire in a theatre. And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      "In general when most people speak of free speech they are concerned with political speech," exactly so. And by that definition the UK does have free speech. As do a lot of countries. Most of the democracies do. You brought up Hate Speech laws as some kind of free speech exception. I quote "the rest of the world doesn't have free speech". as for, "And I do agree that all campaign finance law is an act against free speech." that wasn't what the article implied so you can't "agree" ;-). But sure you can have an opinion. You are bringing in some custom vague definition of "free speech" (to claim the USA has some kind of monopoly on free speech) which doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. I am done with this thread. (I notice the article is dead too . reminder to self. Don't feed the troll)

dantheman 17y ago

I know it is not how it is commonly used, but health insurance is supposed to be insurance. So a preexisting condition, already exists... it'd be like purchasing fire insurance after your house burned down -- it does not work. How about this, remove all regulations relating to the medical industry. Let states step in if they feel there are any problems, remove all tax incentives for employer provided health care. Stop medicaid etc.

bensummers 17y ago
Healthcare is not optional. Therefore leaving it to the markets is unwise. Would you consider leaving policing to the private sector? Perhaps you could have a system where you have "civil protection" insurance policies, and the company protects you from crime? I'm sure that'd work really well.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Food is not optional, Housing is not optional, Clothing & Protection from the Elements is not optional... Would you leave that to the markets? Most people define government as a monopolization of force, so policing must fall under that category.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Most reasonably wealthy countries leave those things to the markets, with some guaranteed minimums for everyone, provided by the government.
  - bensummers 17y ago
    I am right in thinking that even in the US, no-one will be left to starve or without basic accommodation? If I'm right about that, what's so different about healthcare? In the UK, the government provides the basic healthcare, and then you're free to top it up with private health insurance should you want the bells and whistles. Also, since the private health insurance is competing with good healthcare provided for free at point of delivery, they have a wonderful incentive to provide really good value for money.