Hillary's Healthcare Plan

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
Regulation is far different from government control.

The US spend more per capita because we have the best facilities in the world. All brought to you by private enterprise.

I am interested on what any Canadians and British might have to say about government health care. ????

You may be disappointed . While the Brits like to complain about the NHS, they overwhelming prefer it to our system of private insurance companies.

And you are saying the US spends so much because the people who can actually afford things are paying for super expensive procedures while people who can't pay get nothing except when they have an emergency situation? So good health care is only for the rich?

And the Democrat plans are far from government control. None of the main candidates have called for a single payer system.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO


Regulation is far different from government control.

The US spend more per capita because we have the best facilities in the world. All brought to you by private enterprise.

I am interested on what any Canadians and British might have to say about government health care. ????

yeah, look at the huge movement in Canada to drop national health insurance. WTF?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
"Underlying most opposition to the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

Imran, most economists who support the free market do so precisely because they do not trust the individual agents that constitute it.

So you are for private police forces and armies? Against anti-trust laws? For the only roads and airports being done by private industry? If not, why are you against freedom?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You may be disappointed . While the Brits like to complain about the NHS, they overwhelming prefer it to our system of private insurance companies.

Just looking for info. Not prejudging their systems. However, any plan that requires a new outlay of $110 billion better be a damn good one.

And you are saying the US spends so much because the people who can actually afford things are paying for super expensive procedures while people who can't pay get nothing except when they have an emergency situation? So good health care is only for the rich?

If you have ever been to an emergency room then you will know that the vast majority of people in there (both with and without insurance) are not experiencing actual emergencies. Also, your county has a local health department that will already provide a significant amount of free non-emergency care for low income people. Noone needing treatment is denied due to inability to pay...that is already the law.

And the Democrat plans are far from government control. None of the main candidates have called for a single payer system.

The dems plan is NOT that far from government control. It is the beginning of shifting the health care system from private funding to government funding. Everyone knows that where the funding comes from is where the control actually is.

[Jon Miller]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's Healthcare Plan

Originally posted by PLATO


Taxes my man. Where do you think they will get the $110 billion?

And that is just the "projected amount". Once Uncle Sam gets ahold of it, then it will soon make social security look like a minor expenditure. The dems will, of course, claim that the rich should bear the burden for the good of society. Soon, the redistribution of income will be complete. Then, guess what? No more venture capital and the US becomes a second rate country. But you can get a free flu shot!

US is already becoming a 2nd rate country...

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm


"Underlying most opposition to the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

Imran, most economists who support the free market do so precisely because they do not trust the individual agents that constitute it.

aneeshm the current US system is hardly a "free market" product. Its a product of years of institutional inertia and layers of govt regulations of various types.

First, most people historically havent bought their own insurance, theyve gotten it from employers. This was orginally during WW2, when govt wage controls were in place, and employers, hungry for labor, tried to get around them with free benefits. Its been preserved by the inertia of union contracts, and by govt tax incentives. Some firms in industries whose work forces have shrunk, now face massive legacy costs for retiree insurance. Thats a crisis on its own. We have govt provided health insurance for the elderly and the poor - that you get if it youre poor, but lose it when youre not poor, is a disincentive effect. We also have a nascent program for kids. We have laws that require hospital ERs to take people who are uninsured, which results in abuses and major costs. In response to the sad stories of people who cant get insured cause of pre-existing conditons, we have laws requiring an employer who offers insurance to cover pre-existing conditions of new employees, subject to some very complex caveats. Due to horror stories about HMOs and levels of care, we have laws regulating HMOS.

All in all its a giant, expensive regulatory nightmare right now. Not some beautiful Adam Smithian free market.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So you are for private police forces and armies? Against anti-trust laws? For the only roads and airports being done by private industry? If not, why are you against freedom?

These things are not related. There are no parallels.

[PLATO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's Healthcare Plan

Originally posted by Jon Miller


US is already becoming a 2nd rate country...

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO
[q] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


If you have ever been to an emergency room then you will know that the vast majority of people in there (both with and without insurance) are not experiencing actual emergencies. Also, your county has a local health department that will already provide a significant amount of free non-emergency care for low income people. Noone needing treatment is denied due to inability to pay...that is already the law.

and who's paying for that NOW? Or do you beleive in a free lunch?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and who's paying for that NOW? Or do you beleive in a free lunch?

insured individuals by paying market based premiums


...did you just choose not to read my earlier post? Free lunch? Who said anything about that?

[Zkribbler]

The free enterprise system works very well when companies make their profits by supplying us with what we need.

Health insurance companies make their profits by denying us what we need. They make their profits by providing heathcare to healthy people and denying it to sick people.

America is the only country in the industrialized world that uses private health insurers. As a result:
We have the most expensive healthcare in the industrialized world.
We have the shortest lifespans in the industrialized world.
We have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.
We have the most people without access to healthcare in the industrialized world.

We have a healthcare systems that is broken, broken, broken. But we have very rich insurance companies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO


insured individuals by paying market based premiums


...did you just choose not to read my earlier post? Free lunch? Who said anything about that?

The market is irrelevant here. Whichever insurance company I go to, they have to pay provider fees, and those fees have to cover the cost of all that "free" care. which is delivered very inefficiently, both cause ERs are particularly expensive compared to say a GPs office, and cause folks often dont go for preventive care.

The idea is to save the economy money.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The free enterprise system works very well when companies make their profits by supplying us with what we need.

Health insurance companies make their profits by denying us what we need.

well to some extent thats true of all insurance companies, and of warrantie firms, etc. Its the nature of insurance.

But the combination of the nature of the insurance business, some particular aspects of medical care, and the system thats evolved in the US over the years, gives us rampant market failures.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
If you have ever been to an emergency room then you will know that the vast majority of people in there (both with and without insurance) are not experiencing actual emergencies. Also, your county has a local health department that will already provide a significant amount of free non-emergency care for low income people. Noone needing treatment is denied due to inability to pay...that is already the law.

No one is saying people are throw out from emergency rooms. But most people don't know of health departments that issues free care for low income folks (Hell, I don't know of any near me... though they probably exist somewhere). Most folk without insurance don't go for preventative care, which is what is needed, so something catastrophic doesn't happen, making them have to use the emergency room and costly procedures that are paid by the rest of us anyway.

The dems plan is NOT that far from government control. It is the beginning of shifting the health care system from private funding to government funding. Everyone knows that where the funding comes from is where the control actually is.

IMO, it's very far from government control. It's a middle ground between totally private funding (that doesn't exist btw) and totally government funding. It's a blend of the systems.

And the funding comes from, mostly, employers and their employees. The government fundings through subsidies for low income folks will not be that much in the total healthcare costs of the country.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by PLATO
I am interested on what any Canadians and British might have to say about government health care. ????

Our system might not be perfect but yours is barbaric. I've lived in all three countries (UK, USA and Canada) and I'd never wish to see a US style system be put in place elsewhere.

In the UK, we pay less per person and as a percentage of our GDP for universal coverage.