Finding The Right Healthcare: Conservative Solutions to Universal Coverage

[chequita guevara]

I would include the Democratic plans which force everyone to buy health care insurance as conservative too.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't think you understand ...

I understand quite well. You can't rely on "typical" insurance to express what you are talking about because what you are talking about is not "typical" insurance at all.

What you're saying is that you want to fix prices and put healthcare for the masses under government regulation... but you want to pretend this is favoring competition in a way that reduces overall cost. All the while trying to keep criticism or competing ideas from similar POVs being expressed.

Not even your plan meets your qualifications for this thread. It's liberal, if not Liberal. The whole concept of universal healthcare is a liberal POV. Sorry. (It can technically be fiscal conservative though, as long as it's paid for. But that isn't Conservative, and it doesn't mean that the idea isn't liberal.)

[Ramo]

A monopoly in health insurance (subject to public control) substantially reduces administrative costs; Canada's single payer system has administrative costs about 1/3 of ours, for instance. This is ~$100 billion problem for our economy.

The other big costs in our system are that the gov't doesn't negotiate with drug companies for lower prices (as other large institutions and just about every other country does) and that our system doesn't have a cheap GP (i.e. doctors have to invest a ridiculous amount into education, and have to be compensated accordingly).

McKinsey Consulting did a really good breakdown of problems in our health care industry.

[Dinner]

The reality is the French system is superior to the American one in every way, in every shape, and in every form. Study after study show the French get vastly superior care and pay just about half what Americans do. I get so tired of conservatives claiming "American get the best health care in the world" when by all evidence we get the worst in the industrialized world. Even the Taiwanese get better care then we do and pay less for it to boot!

The problem is America's political system is paralysed by special interests and its voters are deliberately lied to by agents of the status quo. In the end we're so ignorant and lazy we deserve the over priced crappy care we get.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aeson


I understand quite well. You can't rely on "typical" insurance to express what you are talking about because what you are talking about is not "typical" insurance at all.

What you're saying is that you want to fix prices and put healthcare for the masses under government regulation... but you want to pretend this is favoring competition in a way that reduces overall cost. All the while trying to keep criticism or competing ideas from similar POVs being expressed.

Not even your plan meets your qualifications for this thread. It's liberal, if not Liberal. The whole concept of universal healthcare is a liberal POV. Sorry. (It can technically be fiscal conservative though, as long as it's paid for. But that isn't Conservative, and it doesn't mean that the idea isn't liberal.)

1. I specified Fiscal Conservative in the intro

2. I don't want to fix prices. I want to offer a governmental alternative, such as the USPS is a governmental alternative to FedEx/UPS, or more similarly public education is an alternative to private schooling (at both the primary/secondary and college levels, in different ways).

From a fiscal conservative's point of view, the major problem with health care as it stands now is that it is:
a) A necessity
b) A public good
c) Getting more expensive by a significant amount

I prefer not to have price caps or other measures that would discourage students from becoming doctors, or would discourage research and investment. I thus would prefer not to have a state single payer system with no private alternatives. I have a hard time conceptualizing how insurers would compete with the federal system, but I think it would be possible; it's a matter of what would be provided I suppose.

I also generally dislike the "mandatory insurance" plans; they rub me the wrong way, although I understand the concept. I think that we should simply insure those who are too poor to insure themselves, and expect everyone else to either insure themselves or pay the costs... I definitely prefer "preventative" focused ideas rather than "catastrophic" focused plans because it is better for all involved - cheaper, more healthy, and more efficient.

I do NOT consider this to be an exclusively liberal idea, by the way; I think that there is reasonable argument to be made that healthcare is a public good that is not necessarily provided adequately for by the market, just like the justice system or schools. I think it's sort of in between, that there are market advantages but there are market failures in the matter; thus, I think a solution that involves the market but ensures the market failures are taken care of is the correct solution, and a very reasonable plan to a fiscal conservative.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I would include the Democratic plans which force everyone to buy health care insurance as conservative too.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
1. I specified Fiscal Conservative in the intro

Yet you implied fiscally conservative plans were Conservative plans, and disallowed liberal and Liberal plans or POVs, while what you suggest is most definitely liberal.

2. I don't want to fix prices.

You will have to for everyone who accepts government insurance.

I do NOT consider this to be an exclusively liberal idea, by the way; I think that there is reasonable argument to be made that healthcare is a public good that is not necessarily provided adequately for by the market, just like the justice system or schools.

Your viewpoint in this matter is liberal. You seem scared to admit it... don't be. Social progress depends on liberal ideas. Something along these lines is what would be best for the nation. But I still take exception at trying to deride and disallow liberal POVs. Especially while espousing one. And without regulating prices it definitely won't be cheaper overall.

(Universal Public Education was most definitely a liberal concept in it's day.)

[Whoha]

Conservative and universal health care are probably mutually exclusive. In any event the high cost of healthcare is driven by wages,infrastructure, and capital investment. If those things are desirable, then you'll have to seek your solution elsewhere.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Whoha
...In any event the high cost of healthcare is driven by wages,infrastructure, and capital investment...

...and the fact that supporting the insurance bureaucracy takes 1 out of every 3 healthcare dollars...

Health insurance isn't the solution; it's the problem.

[Kuciwalker]

...and the fact that supporting the insurance bureaucracy takes 1 out of every 3 healthcare dollars...

Has it occured to you that that money might not be just flushed down some hole? That bureaucracy is what ensures only 'worthwhile' treatments are paid for - without that bureaucracy, it's possible (I'm not qualified to provide a detailed analysis here) that so many wasteful treatments are authorized that society actually loses more money?

[Zkribbler]

The U.S. pays more than any other industrialized nation for health care.
The U.S. has the shortest lifespan of any industrialized nation.
The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation.
The U.S. is the only industrialized nation which provides its healthcare via insurance.

[Kuciwalker]

There are a lot of confounding factors to control for.

[Theben]

1993 GAO report stated that a plan similar to single-payer would save approx. 21 billion dollars, partially due to less sick leave creating more wealth in the private sector.

Hillary was the one who rejected it.