4 ms·

Now if we can only reform medical insurance...

old-gregg 17y ago
Medical insurance? What a barbaric concept. I paid $30K in taxes last year. I don't quite understand why would I even have to think about terms like "insurance" and "money" when/if I get sick. I'm not an American, although I've been living here for 11 years, yet the thought of PAYING for medical care still feels shameful and medieval. If there isn't enough money in the budget to pay doctors then start cutting: on "defense", on bureaucrats, I don't care. Medical care must be absolutely the highest priority federal expense: not a single government employee should be paid until the last US citizen who needs medical attention gets help.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Dilpil 17y ago
  Why should medical care be a higher priority than food?
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    Or a higher priority than endless wars for oil overseas. But I digress... The reason is because most people can still afford food in US, but cannot afford $3k/day hospital stays.
    - BRadmin 17y ago
      Isn't the crux of the problem that it costs $3k/day for a hospital stay to begin with?... A bloated health care industry that inflates prices on medical services, making "insurance" the only viable option for payment, seems like the main issue that demands reformation.
      - jamesbritt 17y ago
        Worse , the bulk of debate is focused on how to shift responsibility for covering that $3K/day rather than figuring out why is costs that much and how to make it cost less.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    And moreover, why should we have to pay for food? By God, I pay taxes. It seems so barbaric and 8th century to make people pay for the food they eat.
    - old-gregg 17y ago
      Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen when it comes to discussions about finally having a health care in this country: here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... I have no idea where this sudden drop comes from. Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
      - lionhearted 17y ago
        > Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen... Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point: > ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo. With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures. > Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time. In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics. > You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. 1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on. 2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them. 3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society. > It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that? Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric. -- My points: 1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession. 2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along? That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.
  - conflux0 17y ago
    Because the majority of the voting population has no problem obtaining food.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - runningdogx 17y ago
    In no small part, food is medical care. Good food is good preventive medical care. Bad food is like trying to perform a back-alley abortion. But I take your point. Medical care doesn't have a higher priority, but its nature makes it a more important issue for government to deal with. The statistical nature of medical costs is that the vast majority of people cannot prepare for the worst without buying into an insurance plan of some sort. Food costs, although they can go up a lot during crises, never reach such heights. Barring a severe depression or massive food shortages -- which it should be noted affect everyone, not just a small portion of the population -- people living above poverty can shift their budgets to be able to afford food even if the price goes up 50%. Hardly anyone can modify their budget to be able to afford bypass surgery or treatment for cancer. However, another side to the issue is that the government already interferes substantially in food costs and food policy. There are substantial subsidies paid to corn and soy farmers, for instance, driving consumer costs of many food products below the actual costs of production if you take away government subsidies.
- natrius 17y ago
  I don't understand how paying for medical care can possibly seem strange. Single-payer systems are merely an arrangement for paying for medical care. In my opinion, it's not a very good arrangement. Everyone who needs health care should be able to obtain it. Most people in developed countries can already obtain health care. Why insert the government into the situation where it isn't needed? Any time you disconnect the amount paid for goods and services from the receipt of those things, the market (i.e. mass human psychology) will work less efficiently. Perhaps the price the government decides to pay will be less than is needed to convince enough people to provide the services in question, resulting in a shortage. Subsidize health care for those who can't afford it. Everyone else should pay their own way privately. Similar changes should be made to the other non-public goods we subsidize, like roads, transit and education.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  This kind of over-the-top rhetoric is great for rallying the masses, but it breaks down under the lightest of logical scrutiny. Here are three of my favorite issues with your position: 1. Why is medical care the highest priority? What about food? Shelter? Safety from rape, murder, and other forms of violence? What about electricity, water, and other infrastructure? While most people don't get very sick, pretty much everyone needs the things above. Why should medical care be the highest priority federal expense? 2. You think it's barbaric to think about paying for medical care, but guess what: you do pay for it. Everyone does. Your "right" to healthcare is not free; someone has to pay for it. And because you think you're entitled to that free of charge, someone else out there is having money taken from them under the threat of force so that you don't have to worry about healthcare. The right to private property far outweighs the right to healthcare, according to the US Constitution, but your system reverses this relationship. 3. The decoupling of supply and demand in the type of system we're about to pass is likely to result in dramatically higher costs and lower quality care over the long run, not to mention the fact that we have no way of paying for it. Granted, our current system is screwed up, but this is far from a fix. This is just moving further in a bad direction. EDIT: Added a third item :)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - fnid 17y ago
    The health care system in the u.s. is immune to supply and demand. The doctors control the supply of doctors. Laws control supply of medications. Insurance companies control supply of procedures. I agree with the post you are replying to. I think if people didn't have to worry about whether or not their health was at stake, they could make better decisions about the work they do. They'd be more productive and worry less and have more brain waves to devote to a better life. People seem to complain a lot saying the government can't do things well. But they run our defense industry and it's the best in the world. They run the roads and we have plenty to drive on. They control the dams and those aren't breaking. Many are lasting way longer than they thought. Furthermore, plenty of governments around the world run their health care systems and they get better care for less money than Americans do.
- pmorici 17y ago
  If you want to know where your money goes just look at this list... http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009....
- raintrees 17y ago
  Medical care is a service. I keep myself very healthy, so I pay very little for medical service. I am willing to pay for Medical Insurance, because like automobile insurance, I may find it difficult to pay for drastically large bills that arise, and may be quite large due to the reimbursement system for emergency services. In car collisions, pain and suffering is a scary demand. In emergency medical care, all those fancy machines to figure out what is going on with my body right now is likewise rather expensive. A long term plan to adopt a good diet, exercise, stretch, brush my teeth, etc. is a relatively easy way to avoid paying for large amounts of medical care. And, I am fortunate enough not to have any major body/mind disability.

Medical insurance? What a barbaric concept. I paid $30K in taxes last year. I don't quite understand why would I even have to think about terms like "insurance" and "money" when/if I get sick. I'm not an American, although I've been living here for 11 years, yet the thought of PAYING for medical care still feels shameful and medieval. If there isn't enough money in the budget to pay doctors then start cutting: on "defense", on bureaucrats, I don't care. Medical care must be absolutely the highest priority federal expense: not a single government employee should be paid until the last US citizen who needs medical attention gets help.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Dilpil 17y ago
Why should medical care be a higher priority than food?
- rdtsc 17y ago
  Or a higher priority than endless wars for oil overseas. But I digress... The reason is because most people can still afford food in US, but cannot afford $3k/day hospital stays.
  - BRadmin 17y ago
    Isn't the crux of the problem that it costs $3k/day for a hospital stay to begin with?... A bloated health care industry that inflates prices on medical services, making "insurance" the only viable option for payment, seems like the main issue that demands reformation.
    - jamesbritt 17y ago
      Worse , the bulk of debate is focused on how to shift responsibility for covering that $3K/day rather than figuring out why is costs that much and how to make it cost less.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  And moreover, why should we have to pay for food? By God, I pay taxes. It seems so barbaric and 8th century to make people pay for the food they eat.
  - old-gregg 17y ago
    Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen when it comes to discussions about finally having a health care in this country: here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... I have no idea where this sudden drop comes from. Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      > Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen... Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point: > ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least... Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo. With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures. > Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time. In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics. > You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. 1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on. 2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them. 3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society. > It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that? Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric. -- My points: 1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession. 2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along? That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.
- conflux0 17y ago
  Because the majority of the voting population has no problem obtaining food.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- runningdogx 17y ago
  In no small part, food is medical care. Good food is good preventive medical care. Bad food is like trying to perform a back-alley abortion. But I take your point. Medical care doesn't have a higher priority, but its nature makes it a more important issue for government to deal with. The statistical nature of medical costs is that the vast majority of people cannot prepare for the worst without buying into an insurance plan of some sort. Food costs, although they can go up a lot during crises, never reach such heights. Barring a severe depression or massive food shortages -- which it should be noted affect everyone, not just a small portion of the population -- people living above poverty can shift their budgets to be able to afford food even if the price goes up 50%. Hardly anyone can modify their budget to be able to afford bypass surgery or treatment for cancer. However, another side to the issue is that the government already interferes substantially in food costs and food policy. There are substantial subsidies paid to corn and soy farmers, for instance, driving consumer costs of many food products below the actual costs of production if you take away government subsidies.
natrius 17y ago
I don't understand how paying for medical care can possibly seem strange. Single-payer systems are merely an arrangement for paying for medical care. In my opinion, it's not a very good arrangement. Everyone who needs health care should be able to obtain it. Most people in developed countries can already obtain health care. Why insert the government into the situation where it isn't needed? Any time you disconnect the amount paid for goods and services from the receipt of those things, the market (i.e. mass human psychology) will work less efficiently. Perhaps the price the government decides to pay will be less than is needed to convince enough people to provide the services in question, resulting in a shortage. Subsidize health care for those who can't afford it. Everyone else should pay their own way privately. Similar changes should be made to the other non-public goods we subsidize, like roads, transit and education.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
This kind of over-the-top rhetoric is great for rallying the masses, but it breaks down under the lightest of logical scrutiny. Here are three of my favorite issues with your position: 1. Why is medical care the highest priority? What about food? Shelter? Safety from rape, murder, and other forms of violence? What about electricity, water, and other infrastructure? While most people don't get very sick, pretty much everyone needs the things above. Why should medical care be the highest priority federal expense? 2. You think it's barbaric to think about paying for medical care, but guess what: you do pay for it. Everyone does. Your "right" to healthcare is not free; someone has to pay for it. And because you think you're entitled to that free of charge, someone else out there is having money taken from them under the threat of force so that you don't have to worry about healthcare. The right to private property far outweighs the right to healthcare, according to the US Constitution, but your system reverses this relationship. 3. The decoupling of supply and demand in the type of system we're about to pass is likely to result in dramatically higher costs and lower quality care over the long run, not to mention the fact that we have no way of paying for it. Granted, our current system is screwed up, but this is far from a fix. This is just moving further in a bad direction. EDIT: Added a third item :)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- fnid 17y ago
  The health care system in the u.s. is immune to supply and demand. The doctors control the supply of doctors. Laws control supply of medications. Insurance companies control supply of procedures. I agree with the post you are replying to. I think if people didn't have to worry about whether or not their health was at stake, they could make better decisions about the work they do. They'd be more productive and worry less and have more brain waves to devote to a better life. People seem to complain a lot saying the government can't do things well. But they run our defense industry and it's the best in the world. They run the roads and we have plenty to drive on. They control the dams and those aren't breaking. Many are lasting way longer than they thought. Furthermore, plenty of governments around the world run their health care systems and they get better care for less money than Americans do.
pmorici 17y ago
If you want to know where your money goes just look at this list... http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009....
raintrees 17y ago
Medical care is a service. I keep myself very healthy, so I pay very little for medical service. I am willing to pay for Medical Insurance, because like automobile insurance, I may find it difficult to pay for drastically large bills that arise, and may be quite large due to the reimbursement system for emergency services. In car collisions, pain and suffering is a scary demand. In emergency medical care, all those fancy machines to figure out what is going on with my body right now is likewise rather expensive. A long term plan to adopt a good diet, exercise, stretch, brush my teeth, etc. is a relatively easy way to avoid paying for large amounts of medical care. And, I am fortunate enough not to have any major body/mind disability.