BurlingtonPol.com

Sounds like a winner.
Facilitated by Bob Kiss AND meaningful education.
Lots of factual information there I'm sure...

When I was younger (back in 1993), I used to buy into the 'Health Care is too expensive' line. My supervisor asked me a question that got me thinking. He asked me how much would it be worth to me out of pocket to have a doctor set my broken leg properly and know that I would regain the full use of it. Then he threw out dollar figures: "$50, $100, $500, $1000?"
Put another way, what's the cost of not having insurance, or of not seeking medical treatment? Is it higher or lower? Would you rather go to the crazy 'bone-setter' down by the river and pay $50, or go to a doctor and pay $1000?
Insurance, be it health, auto, or rental, is a means to manage risk. The risks are spread out over a larger population with the understanding that not everyone will get any given disease, so the costs become manageable. If you are willing to assume those risks yourself, then you don't have to buy insurance. But if you decide the risk of loss (physical or financial) is too great, then you can buy the insurance and protect yourself and those on your policy.
Now, the reason health insurance is so expensive here is because of all the requirements that the state government has set for insurers. If they just let insurers offer several basic plans, then the cost would drop dramatically. Personally, I would prefer to pay out of pocket for extras like chiropractic care and pay less every month for insurance.
Cheaper insurance would help everyone, especially the factory workers the socialists are going to parade out for the 'Teach In' at Contois next week.

 

Insurance, be it health, auto, or rental, is a means to manage risk. The risks are spread out over a larger population with the understanding that not everyone will get any given disease, so the costs become manageable.

So logically wouldn't it be best to spread the risk among the entire population to keep the cost as low as possible? The way to accomplish this is through a single-payer, national health insurance program.

 

Bob, just stay home with your head up your ass.

 

So logically wouldn't it be best to spread the risk among the entire population to keep the cost as low as possible? The way to accomplish this is through a single-payer, national health insurance program.

No because a national health 'insurance' program would be nothing more than a government program. An insurance company is different from a government program, no matter how much politicians try to make them sound the same. Governments deal with budgets and bureaucracies, while insurance companies deal with premiums and profits. This is a huge distinction.
In government, profit is of no concern, so there is little motivation to control costs. There are also bureaucracies to ensure that waste and incompetent people's jobs will be protected and that political fads will be taken into account when making health decisions that should be based on hard data. If costs need to be controlled because a tax increase is politically unpopular, services will be limited, like in Canada.
In private insurance companies, profit and loss are of paramount importance. The best way to increase profits is to reduce costs. The best way to reduce costs is to streamline your administrative operation. Unlike the government, insurance companies can't limit the number of a particular procedure they cover in any given year and put people on waiting lists. It is inevitable that premiums will go up, but not as much as a government program would, and the availability and quality of the care will certainly not decline.

Haik, why is it that liberals hate monopolies unless they happen to involve the government taking over large sectors of our economy?


Anonymous said... "Bob, just stay home with your head up your ass."

Anonymous, I appreciate your comment. To me it says "You are right. I am not able to counter your post with anything of my own, so I'm going to insult you in a way that implies you are dumb and I am smart."

 

I just find it interesting you won't go to such an event for fear of hearing anything that differs from your point of view.

 

Why are we so fond of this "system" that costs twice as much as any other country (while our health is not as good) and leaves tens of millions uninsured.

 

I'm with Bob.

 

An insurance company is different from a government program, no matter how much politicians try to make them sound the same. Governments deal with budgets and bureaucracies, while insurance companies deal with premiums and profits. This is a huge distinction.

You’re not seriously trying to tell me insurance companies don’t also deal with budgets and bureaucracies, are you ? And what you call premiums, the government would call tax. Try raising taxes at the rate health insurance companies raise their premiums. It doesn’t happen because the public has a say in what the government does. Private insurers raise their rates so much every year precisely because they deal in profits, and the public does not control them. Imagine how much cheaper health care would be in America without the aggregate cost of profits for all the hundreds of individual insurance companies. I noticed that you did not dispute the claim that the administrative costs for Medicare are around three percent.

In government, profit is of no concern, so there is little motivation to control costs.

Other than the motivation of politicians who do not want to raise taxes.

There are also bureaucracies to ensure that waste and incompetent people's jobs will be protected and that political fads will be taken into account when making health decisions that should be based on hard data.

If “hard data” is what you champion, perhaps you could give an example of a health care fad that has been “taken into account” by a government health program.

If costs need to be controlled because a tax increase is politically unpopular, services will be limited, like in Canada.

There are limits to everything. Is there no limit to service in America? Of course there is. That threshold may be higher for some in America than it is for anyone in Canada, but that distinction comes at the expense of millions with a much lower limit of service because the expense of insurance or out of pocket care is prohibitive. Pick your poison. Would you rather have a few who can afford to be kept alive forever on machines, with tens of millions uninsured, or have a basic standard of care for all citizens without a lot of extras? I’ll take the latter.

In private insurance companies, profit and loss are of paramount importance. The best way to increase profits is to reduce costs. The best way to reduce costs is to streamline your administrative operation.

OK-streamlining administrative operations may or may not be the best way to reduce costs, but everybody knows it isn’t the only way. Another way private insurers “reduce costs” is by limiting the amounts they pay out in claims. How do they do this? Let me count the ways. They hide procedures and illnesses that they don’t cover in the small print of their contract. They deliberately charge high deductibles that they know a certain number of their customers won’t be able to pay. They won’t enroll higher risk patients, or the elderly, or people with “pre-existing conditions.” They might use clerical errors as an excuse not to pay. They might declare bankruptcy. You name it. These exalted “profits” aren’t all made of sunshine and happiness. And they’re not all made by streamlining administration (as if unifying all payers into one wouldn’t do that anyway.) A lot of these profits are made by screwing people. Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Unlike the government, insurance companies can't limit the number of a particular procedure they cover in any given year and put people on waiting lists.

That’s wrong. They can and do.

It is inevitable that premiums will go up, but not as much as a government program would, and the availability and quality of the care will certainly not decline.

That is conjecture.

Haik, why is it that liberals hate monopolies unless they happen to involve the government taking over large sectors of our economy?

I’ll tell you Bob. It’s because liberals believe in democracy over aristocracy.

 

"It’s because liberals believe in democracy over aristocracy."

So, are you saying that the people who support free-market healthcare are all from the "ruling" class? Give me a break.

"Would you rather have a few who can afford to be kept alive forever on machines, with tens of millions uninsured, or have a basic standard of care for all citizens without a lot of extras? I’ll take the latter."

Well, tell that to the Dems. in the VT legislature because the Catamount Health Plan they came up with goes way beyond basic care.

In fact, if insurance companies were allowed under VT law to offer a basic plan, premiums might be lower. As it is now, we all have to pay for services whether or not we will ever use them because the law requires certain things be covered.

 

"Why are we so fond of this "system" that costs twice as much as any other country (while our health is not as good) and leaves tens of millions uninsured."

Will someone please tell me what it so "not as good" about our healthcare? People (usually anonymous people) keep throwing this out and never backing it up.

 

So, are you saying that the people who support free-market healthcare are all from the "ruling" class? Give me a break.

No. That's not what I'm saying. Go back and read your own question. It wasn't even specific to healthcare.

 

Will someone please tell me what it so "not as good" about our healthcare?

It's not the healthcare that's not so good, Charity. It's the price. It's the annual double digit premium increases. More and more people are going uninsured because people like Bill Frist need their profits. It isn't right.

 

Go back and read your own question.

Oops. I meant your husband's question. I'm mixing you two up. Sorry.

 

45 million people are not so fond of our system. That's simply pitiful for the richest country on earth.

 

I think Saudi Arabia is the richest country on earth. But your point is well taken.

 

"It's not the healthcare that's not so good, Charity. It's the price."

I was responding to this:

Anonymous said...

Why are we so fond of this "system" that costs twice as much as any other country (while our health is not as good) and leaves tens of millions uninsured.

4:56 PM

I don't think that was about the price, but I could be wrong.