You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
OK, here's what I understand so far about Nationalized Health Care and one question
What I understand:
We're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a President that also is exempt from it, hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.
How is forcing people into buying health insurance or how is taking my money to give to somebody else so they can buy insurance a justification for reform?
This is a huge misconception and the only people who seem to be upset about it are people with insurance who are not going to be effected by the bill in the least... well except that it will bring down national debt, but whatever.
The bill forces those who can afford insurance, but have not bought insurance to buy into a program some years down the road. However, what they get to buy into is different in 3 ways from what is available now to say people like me who are self-employed, or those who work for a company that does not provide it:
1 a lot cheaper
2 insurance can't say no or charge say around 600 a month (which might as well be no) because of family history or something
3 they can't decide after you get sick that you had a pre-existing condition
You act as if people without insurance don't have insurance by choice. I assure you this isn't a matter of personal rights, it's a matter of health insurance companies gouging customers.
You honestly think a Government run program that is projected to cost a Trillion dollars over ten years (keeping in mind we all pay the premiums (taxes) the first four years with the actual insurance stating in 2014) is going to bring down the national dept? The Congressional Budget Office estimates have always been underestimates! This is a job killer, why would anyone hirer right now with all this uncertainty.
Buying insurance is a matter of choice! most low income households have two T.V.'s, smoke and drink! its all a choice.
I am assuming that you can afford insurance. How much of your paycheck are you willing to sacrifice for a fair deal for someone else? Is it 5, 10,15% or higher.
You like to pay for insurance twice. First for yourself, and others who you don't even know. You are a humanitarian. Congrats. Insurance mandates and subsidies isn't going to fix the problem of health care.
A government who robs Peter to pay Paul is always supported by Paul.
Don't you understand that nothing the government has ever done is efficient and effective? Name one program.
Well if these states are passing laws that say the government can't force someone to get health insurance, then what will happen? Will the people wait until they get sick and decide to get insurance? Since the insurance companies can't deny anyone with pre-existing conditions. Who will have to split that bill when people figure out, which I'm sure they will?
What could go wrong? Well, apparently, your understanding of every single thing you're talking about... starting with the fact that this bill doesn't even vaguely resemble nationalized health care.
How is forcing people into buying health insurance or how is taking my money to give to somebody else so they can buy insurance a justification for reform?
I understand reforming preexisting conditions and lifetime limits.
If you want insurance to work most efficiently you need everyone bought in. If big chunks of the low risk low expense population opts out then the system either needs to charge far higher rates to everyone who is opted in, or it bankrupts. And insurance rates are already reaching levels where it is becoming flat out unaffordable to very large segments of the population. The need to stop out of control cost inflation is one of the primary driving forces behind the need for reforming the system. So just letting the costs keep climbing higher isn't really a workable option.
You want those pre-existing exclusions and lifetime limits you say you understand the need to eliminate actually eliminated? Then you need people buying into the system to cover the cost. You do not get one without the other without driving the system into total bankruptcy or driving the cost of getting any insurance out of reach of an unacceptably large percentage of the population.
If you want to complain about buying insurance that's your call. But do so with the awareness that without requiring people to participate you are forever guaranteeing that large percentages of the population will not be able to get insurance at all.
There are other ways to lower costs of insurance instead of subsidizing.
So, in order for insurance to work, I have to pay twice for insurance. One for myself, plus others who can't. I get hit twice with payments while someone gets subsidized health care. Wow what a great deal. Maybe your right. I should quit my job and work at Wal-Mart, so I can get subsidized health care insurance.
So, if I am low risk, I should pay more because of high risk candidates.
Inflation is not created by anybody except the government. Government prints or ledgers in too much money into their books in order to finance their big spending plans.
How much are you willing to pay to subsidize this health care plan. 5, 10 or 15 % of your pay check, so everybody gets a fair deal.
If you want to give more money to the government, that's your call.
The high rise of costs in health care is not insurance companies. It is high salaries of doctors, technology, nurses and hospital administrators.
We were not talking about "subsidizing". Please don't mix terminology. We were talking about insurance mandates.
The only thing insurance madates have to do with subsidies is that they LESSEN the need for subsidies since it lowers average costs across the board. So do you want more subsidies (no mandate) or less subsidies (mandate)?
Or do you just not want any subsidies, but we still need to give emergency medicalcare to people when they need it. Which is the most expensive care possible. And the hospitals aren't just going to eat the loss when those uninsured people can't possibly pay the bill so they hike up the cost to the insured patients and you pay for it anyway... only now you're paying for the more expensive emergency care so you're getting gouged?
Or do we just let anyone who can't pay for health care die in the street?
What, exactly, is your preference here? None of the things you just listed comes near solving the cost problem.
You realize insurance companies already have anti-trust exemptions?
And hospitals cost money. How does this reduce cost exactly?
Insurance mandates force everyone to pay for others so they are pay lower costs subsidized by the government through me and my neighbor.
I want no mandates or subsidies. Health care is a product and commerce, and it is should be treated as one and not insurance mandates to support government subsidies so other people can get the same insurance cheaper that I pay for twice.
I know insurance companies already have anti trust exemptions. That is why I said repeal it.
Building more hospitals creates more competition between hospitals, which doesn't allows them to hike prices and fees. I live in a relatively medium city with 80,000 people. There are two hospitals. That is a complete monopoly. They can and do charge whatever prices because they have no competition.
Putting more students through medical school and Hiring more doctors creates more competition between doctors. Doctors have no real competition either because since there are small number of hospitals, there is a low supply of doctors with a large demand of patients. So, they can charge whatever price for their services, and have no incentives to provide the best care because they too have no competition.
Ok, so we have no mandates. So lots of people in the low risk segment of the population decide they're not buying insurance because they think they can get away with it. Since these are the profitable segment of the population for insurance companies they have to charge higher prices to anyone who does get insurance to maintain a profit margin.
Additionally, some of those geniuses who bet they didn't need insurance? They were wrong. Big. But good luck affording insurance AFTER you find out you're seriously expensively ill. So now we have a situation. We let these people die in the street, or we treat them. What do you advocate? Because if we treat them then somebody needs to cover the costs of, say, the neurosurgery to remove the brain tumor. And it sure isn't going to be the guy who can't afford insurance. Guess who it is going to be? The people who actually did buy insurance, who now get their rates jacked to cover the higher prices the hospital charges the insurers to cover the costs to the hospital of treating Joe Genius who decided he didn't need health insurance. So higher prices again.
Then we revoke the anti-trust exemption. The reason that exemption exists is to allow insurance companies to share demographic data so they can build accurate models of systemic risk and set their pricing structures accordingly. Now if you remove their ability to access all that data you may get lucky and it has no effect and they're still able to model just as accurately with the more limited available information. But if they aren't and the error bars on their models go up so do their prices to cover the uncertainty. They sure as heck do not go down. You're on a roll with these policies of yours.
Then we start building new hospitals! Yay! Let's see... Tehachapi, CA.... which is a little town outside Bakersfield, happens to be currently planning a new hospital construction. This is not exactly going to be a giant facility, feel free to look up Tehachapi on google maps. Current projected construction costs are $65 million. That's just to build the building. Then you have to cover maintenance and upkeep costs indefinitely. Then you have to actually fill the thing with equipment. Expensive equipment. Then you have to staff it with admins and accountants, etc... and then you have to hire the doctors and nurses and pay all of their salaries.
Now, do tell me exactly how much you think the added competition this hospital is going to bring to Tehachapi and the surrounding area is going to lower health care costs while prices are kept high enough it will cover the doctors salaries, and the nurses salaries, and the administrative staff's salaries and the maintenance and upkeep on the building, and the cost of equipment AND make back the $65million in construction costs for the facility? I'd really love to hear you make that argument.
And unless those two hospitals in your town are owned by the same people, go look up "monopoly". And I'm going to pretend I didn't even see you try to argue that doctors have no competition just because you don't think there are enough hospitals for your liking.
As for putting more people through medical schools, who is doing this "putting" you speak of? I thought you were a "market will fix things" guy? Why isn't the market driving these people to become doctors to fill this giant demand you perceive? Is the government blocking people from going to medical school or something?
You must be kidding to think that mandates will do anything. Many states are suing the federal government over this mandate. [1] This health care fight is not over yet. When the Republicans win in November, the bill will be repealed faster than it was crafted.
There is not just one form of a monopoly. The medical field is a coercive monopoly.
Coercive monopoly is a business field that can prohibit competitors from entering the field, with the natural result being that the firm is able to make pricing and production decisions independent of competitive forces. A coercive monopoly is not merely a sole supplier of a particular kind of good or service, but it is a monopoly where there is no opportunity to compete through means such as price competition, technological or product innovation, or marketing; entry into the field is closed. [2]
There is a huge monopoly in the medical field. "The AMA has enormous influence over what's taught in medical schools, over physicians' continuing education and indeed over every aspect of the practice of medicine today." [3]
Not only are there only 2 hospitals for the city, but the surrounding area or metropolitan area, there are 3 hospitals for 250,000 people.
You really need to understand the supply and demand of a labor market.
Less Supply of workers + high demand = very high salary.
Well, you are correct, the government and the AMA do block people from going to medical school as previously noted as a coercive monopoly. I am a free market guy. This restrictive practices are first done by medical school and then by occupational licenses. SEE VIDEO
No, I must know how to do math to think that mandates will do something.
Do you or do you not understanmd how insurance works? It is a risk pooling mechanism. You take the total risk to the insured population and mitigate it's effect on any one individual member by spreading the costs across the group so nobody suffers some fluke financial catastrophe. I mean, that's not complicated right? Now... what happens to the level of average risk if you insure all the higher risk people and lots of low risk people leave the pool? Does it go up, or does it go down? And if risk goes up, what does price do?
On the other hand, if you increase the size of the pool to include all the lower risk population then what happens?
As for the Republicans repealing, good luck with that. What it's like in your world anyway? Because in my world there are a couple issues with that idea:
1. It is literally impossible for the Republicans to win a Senate Majority of sufficient size to over-ride presidential veto in 2010, so it's not happening before 2012. Even if they won EVERY SINGLE senate election in the country in 2010 they wouldn't get there.
2. It's fine and good to rant and rave and call this some kind of socialist take-over of the nation's health care now, when they can spout bullcrap like that and get away with it because large percentages of the population have no idea what is actually in the bill (are you aware that the 1993 GOP health care proposal presented as an alternative to Clinton's health care proposal had mandated insurance coverage? Hmmm? The GOP is completely full of crap on this issue... or the GOP was the socialist party in 1993 maybe?). However, repealing it after it has been in efffect for at least three years and people know what it's actually doing? HA! Hilarious idea. Never going to happen. The republicans were up in arms about medicare being one step away from communism when that was enacted. How quick were they to repeal that once it was in place? But if you think they're going to jump on this, well, enjoy your fantasy.
And no, the medical field is not a coercive monopoly either. Having professional standards is not establishing a freaking coercive monopoly.
And just an FYI, 3 hospitals for 250,000 people is actually probably pretty close to right in terms of efficiency. You do realize that the hospitals aren't the only medical service providers right? There are clinics, there are private practices... people don't need to go to an actual hospital every time they get sick.
And you have got to be kidding about the government and AMA blocking people from medical school. You mean... by having standards? It's like I don't even have to write these responses, you make a mockery of your own arguments without me even helping. Yes, let's do away with those nasty restrictive standards for graduating and licensing doctors. They're such a great evil. Let the free market decide if that guy over there is qualified to take out my appendix by seeing if he's able to convince me to pay him to try doing it.
Of course, I understand how insurance works with the whole risk pool jargon. I do pay for it.
The truth is that I don't care whether you or my neighbor can afford insurance. I only care about myself and family. I have no interest in higher risk people. Sounds cold hearten, but did they help me when I was in the time of need or someone I know. No. Forcing low risk people to pay to insure that high risk people get insurance is unfair. Just because you increase the low risk people, doesn't defeat the fact that high risk people are still there.
By the way, medicare is socialism. The only reason why the spineless Republicans of today don't oppose Medicare is because they would lose to the socialist Democrats for good.
You have got to be kidding to think that the government and AMA isn't blocking people from medical school and occupation licensing. For instance, if a doctor graduated from medical school and passed the license test 30 years ago, it doesn't mean that he is still competent to practice medicine just as if a student who just graduated and pass the medical license test. I never said that graduating from medical is not a qualified person, but a license doesn't guarantee that someone is competent. It could have taken student 5 times to pass because he has a interest in passing no matter what. The free market decides who is competent by who does the best care at the lowest price.
So, if the government wants professional standards, then WHY DON'T ARCHITECTS need a license? They design buildings and bridges. Millions of people depend on these things everyday.
And yes, the medical field is a monopoly.The only feasible way that a business could close entry to a field and therefore be able to raise prices free of competitive forces is with the aid of government in restricting competition. The government and AMA aid doctors, nurses, hospitals and etc to manipulate the market.
You keeping telling yourself that is right for a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
The truth is that I don't care whether you or my neighbor can afford insurance. I only care about myself and family. I have no interest in higher risk people.
Then you clearly DON'T understand insurance, since whether or not "you and your famiuly" can afford insurance depends on the costs to the insrance providers that determine what rates they're going to charge you. Which is dependent on what OTHER FREAKING PEOPLE are paying into the damn system.
If you don't have mandates and low risk people drop out of the system YOUR bill goes up. If the insurers only get higher risk populations in their customer pool YOUR bill goes up. How do you not get this?
By the way, medicare is socialism. The only reason why the spineless Republicans of today don't oppose Medicare is because they would lose to the socialist Democrats for good.
But the spineless Republicans who not only don't get rid of Medicare but EXPAND it when they're in power are totally going to repeal health care reform this time, right? That was what you were declaring one post ago.
And no, I'm not kidding that having professional standards isn't establishing a coercive monopoly... it's a completely ridiculous idea.
So, if the government wants professional standards, then WHY DON'T ARCHITECTS need a license? They design buildings and bridges. Millions of people depend on these things everyday.
Wow! What a great point! I can't believe architects don't need a licence!
Of course the reason I don't believe that is probably because they DO need licenses. The licensing requirements vary state to state but in California practicing as an architect without a license will get you up to a $5000 fine and possible jail time. Oh No!!! Architecture is a coercive monoploy too!
What makes you think that I am Republican? I am Libertarian. That is why I called them spineless.
If low risk people drop out of the system, that is their choice, it is a matter commerce. Health care is a product. Fine my bill goes up. But I am paying for my coverage and not helping someone else get it for cheaper and the same coverage because they can't afford it. Cry me a river!! I understand the insurance. You just want me to be forced to pay for other people so they can afford insurance for a cheaper rate with government subsidies while I get the bill of the full burden of the cost. Twice. Myself and others.
Since you are the economist and health care expert, tell me exactly how the medical field not a monopoly aided by government.
You keep supporting a government that robs Peter to Pay Paul where Paul will always be supportive.
By the way, I am pretty sure that only California and New York requires a license for Architecture while otherwise it is only recommended. Each jurisdiction sets its own requirements for initial registration, examination, and corporate practice. NCARB does not set national requirements unlike in the medical field.
Since you are the economist and health care expert, tell me exactly how the medical field not a monopoly aided by government.
Because monopolies are singular entities with control over a market that prevents any competition from entering. Doctors and hospitals are seperate entities that COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER.
WOW, you really have a narrow understanding of a monopoly as you accused me of a narrow understanding of health insurance. A monopoly doesn't have to be one individual but a sector or enterprise. Doctors and hospitals are not separate entities. They work under the control of the AMA. [2] I guess you didn't read this.
Ok, it is not a coercive monopoly but still a monopoly. Got mixed up a little. That is different. This is government forcing companies to merger in order for a monopoly.
And no, doctors and hospitals do NOT work "under the control" of the AMA. It's just a professional association, and at last count only 22% of doctors and physicians are even members of the AMA for cripes sake. If they somehow controlled the industry I think they'd be able to get their membership numbers a bit higher at the very least.
And the people at CATO think a lot of ridiculous things.
YEAH, Cato is a bunch of crazy people.-------------------
The most logical thing for anyone is to drop their policy or if uninsured, remain uninsured, and pay $750/year penalties until you finally get sick, then anyone can buy health insurance since there are no pre-existing conditions. It'll be like avoiding homeowners insurance to save money, then buying some once your house is on fire because the insurance company is forced to sell you the policy.
This recently passed health care bill will do nothing but increase health care costs by eliminating pre existing conditions, have no lifetime cap, no denial of benefits, continuation of coverage past employment
You mean pay money into the system every year and get absolutely nothing out of it, just waiting for the time when some major medical expense hits you and hoping it does so with enough advance warning you can get insured first?
Yeah, you do that. That's a brilliant strategy. Because you know serious catastrophic medical conditions always call ahead and schedule their appearance to make sure it's convenient for you... so I'm sure that'll work out fine. And the rest of us will all appreciate the free money you're tossing into the system in the meantime.
You display the same deep insight into this aspect of the system as you have into all the others.
This is a stupid bill because it is meant to insure roughly 10% of the American population. But those 10% are people who are too stupid to get a job or stay healthy. Who needs these people?
Just like the death of the slowest, in any given herd, increases the speed of the herd, so does the death of stupid people increase the mental capacity of the nation. ;)
The healthcare plan is going to get America broke we can not afford it! If we keep printing money the value will go down. Canada has the healthcare that the US is trying to get and it is not working for Canada. There will also be less doctors because they won't be paid as much as there getting paid now!
1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Jesus Christ you guys are such pathetic cunts. Your arguments can't stand on their own so you resort to prying into people's personal lives.
I have been on my own since I dropped out of college. Living off of savings while trying to start a company. Not that it's any of your fucking business.
