Is health care...

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This question prompted a good discussion between wife and I, and I've been thinking about it a lot.

I don't have a good argument against Obama's answer: "in a country as advanced and wealthy as ours, it should be a right."

I think we need to maybe redefine a very basic, bottom line health care plan that is probably fraction the cost of Medicaid/Medicare and make it available universally. It will be free (or subsidized based on income level) but it will be a real PITA to use and you don't get anything that could even be considered elective.

Agreed. In some ways, Medicaid is the best thing out there. What other plans let you have baby after baby after baby and all the ER visits you want without paying a dime? The poor really don't have to suffer too badly in our system--they get better emergency care than anywhere else in the world. It's the middle class that are pinched--that is, until they become poor.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This question prompted a good discussion between wife and I, and I've been thinking about it a lot.

I don't have a good argument against Obama's answer: "in a country as advanced and wealthy as ours, it should be a right."

I think we need to maybe redefine a very basic, bottom line health care plan that is probably fraction the cost of Medicaid/Medicare and make it available universally. It will be free (or subsidized based on income level) but it will be a real PITA to use and you don't get anything that could even be considered elective.

What a bullshit statement.

I can see the political wisdom in it, currying favor with everybody who believes he or she is paying too much for health care and who is naive enough to believe a government controlled, owned and paid for system will be cheaper and better, but it is still bullshit.

We're so advanced we should guarantee cradle to grave care. I see it and note people want that, but what have become? A country where nobody has drive to contribute but everybody wants a handout.

With the entitlement age coming upon us we will see a continued slow down and a malaise, not specific to every individual but that will be our national persona.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What a bullshit statement.

I can see the political wisdom in it, currying favor with everybody who believes he or she is paying too much for health care and who is naive enough to believe a government controlled, owned and paid for system will be cheaper and better, but it is still bullshit.

We're so advanced we should guarantee cradle to grave care. I see it and note people want that, but what have become? A country where nobody has drive to contribute but everybody wants a handout.

With the entitlement age coming upon us we will see a continued slow down and a malaise, not specific to every individual but that will be our national persona.

I'm not far off from where you are on this. First, I don't accept the premise that we are so wealthy that we can afford this. Someone will have to pay for it. Also I flat out don't buy that people can't afford health insurance. Granted that some cannot, but most can and choose to spend their money on other things like tricking out their crappy cars or buying big screen TVs. Some people just drink their extra money.

I am all for a safety net for those who really cannot do it themselves, I am not a fan of subsidizing the bad spending choices other people make. Lots of people just don't want to write that check every month where they can spend the money on other discretionary items. This is what galls me about the idea of paying for their health care. Heaven knows I could drive a nicer car or live in a bigger house if I stopped paying my premiums.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not far off from where you are on this. First, I don't accept the premise that we are so wealthy that we can afford this. Someone will have to pay for it. Also I flat out don't buy that people can't afford health insurance. Granted that some cannot, but most can and choose to spend their money on other things like tricking out their crappy cars or buying big screen TVs. Some people just drink their extra money.

I am all for a safety net for those who really cannot do it themselves, I am not a fan of subsidizing the bad spending choices other people make. Lots of people just don't want to write that check every month where they can spend the money on other discretionary items. This is what galls me about the idea of paying for their health care. Heaven knows I could drive a nicer car or live in a bigger house if I stopped paying my premiums.

Nonsense. We are already paying for it. If a person goes to a hospital with life threatening injuries, do you think we turn them away right now if they don't have insurance? Of course not. They are treated. And they should be. Who pays for it? You and me. We already cover those costs.

Obama's plan simply recognizes a fact in American life- we all already pay for "universal" health care. Why not make it cheaper by focusing on preventative care and requiring that anyone who receives treatment who doesn't have health care then be required to contribute money to repay the system for what they should have contributed originally through health care premiums.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Nonsense. We are already paying for it. If a person goes to a hospital with life threatening injuries, do you think we turn them away right now if they don't have insurance? Of course not. They are treated. And they should be. Who pays for it? You and me. We already cover those costs.

Obama's plan simply recognizes a fact in American life- we all already pay for "universal" health care. Why not make it cheaper by focusing on preventative care and requiring that anyone who receives treatment who doesn't have health care then be required to contribute money to repay the system for what they should have contributed originally through health care premiums.

Have you ever read Freakonomics? It reminds me of an experiment he talks about in the book where a day care had problems with parents not coming on time and so they decided to see what would happen if they began charging a $5 late fee. They were surprised to find that more parents began to come late and more frequently. The reason was that rather than disincentivizing the behavior they had put a price tag on the behavior that most parents decided was affordable.

It also makes me think of pro-bono clients I have had. One would think that people who are getting something free would be more appreciative and less demanding. The opposite is true. Boy did I ever learn this in the free third year practice I did. There is a rational relationship between things costing something and the rate at which people will consume them.

My point is that when you make health care free, you aren't just exchanging the cost of emergency room visits paid out of pocket for the cost of preventative care and emergency room visists, albeit fewer, paid up front. What you are doing is incentivizing people to consume as much health care as they possibly can. I can go to my doctor now and it costs me a $15 co-pay, but that is not for an unlimited number of times. I can't go there every day and pay that. After a certain number my cost goes way up because, of course, I begin to consume more health care than I am paying for. Without any financial disincentive to go to the doctor only one really needs to, consumption of the services will balloon which will mean scarcity of services, ie, the long lines you see in other countries who try to do this. You just can't convince me that it is cheaper.

I admit that I believe in hindsight that much of what we have done in Iraq was discretionary, elective spending that we couldn't really afford. Will some liberals who feel the same way, for the sake of consistency, join me in wondering whether massive social programming and spending is not equally elective and equally unafforable?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Ooo....see it ain't sooo, barbaragordon.

Tex made a fatal error in telling you to get to the back of the bus....he shows that just below the surface is a guy who wants all women to stay in the kitchen or in the bedroom.

Tex is not ready for a meeavrick like you.

Back of the bus for her. Short bus for you.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Have you ever read Freakonomics? It reminds me of an experiment he talks about in the book where a day care had problems with parents not coming on time and so they decided to see what would happen if they began charging a $5 late fee. They were surprised to find that more parents began to come late and more frequently. The reason was that rather than disincentivizing the behavior they had put a price tag on the behavior that most parents decided was affordable.

It also makes me think of pro-bono clients I have had. One would think that people who are getting something free would be more appreciative and less demanding. The opposite is true. Boy did I ever learn this in the free third year practice I did. There is a rational relationship between things costing something and the rate at which people will consume them.

My point is that when you make health care free, you aren't just exchanging the cost of emergency room visits paid out of pocket for the cost of preventative care and emergency room visists, albeit fewer, paid up front. What you are doing is incentivizing people to consume as much health care as they possibly can. I can go to my doctor now and it costs me a $15 co-pay, but that is not for an unlimited number of times. I can't go there every day and pay that. After a certain number my cost goes way up because, of course, I begin to consume more health care than I am paying for. Without any financial disincentive to go to the doctor only one really needs to, consumption of the services will balloon which will mean scarcity of services, ie, the long lines you see in other countries who try to do this. You just can't convince me that it is cheaper.

I admit that I believe in hindsight that much of what we have done in Iraq was discretionary, elective spending that we couldn't really afford. Will some liberals who feel the same way, for the sake of consistency, join me in wondering whether massive social programming and spending is not equally elective and equally unafforable?

It's called moral hazard. You need to incorporate as much moral hazard principles as possible into the universally available plan. Part of it you could do just with the PITA factor, forcing them to jump through hoops to get crap approved.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I do.... Because morally its wrong to make someone work (a physician) for what some consider as the good of the people. In short one citizen becomes a slave for another's so called "right". What then else becomes a right? Does everyone have a right to job? Does everyone have a right to a higher education? Does everyone have a right to Lawyer (not just criminal cases)?

You've read too much Ayn Rand.

You found the answer already. You believe it's a right to have a lawyer in criminal cases but not civil cases. You probably believe in other basic survival rights. It's just how far you want to go drawing the line at what's a basic right/need and what's not. Food, shelter, very basic health care are all doable for our country.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You've read too much Ayn Rand.

You found the answer already. You believe it's a right to have a lawyer in criminal cases but not civil cases. You probably believe in other basic survival rights. It's just how far you want to go drawing the line at what's a basic right/need and what's not. Food, shelter, very basic health care are all doable for our country.

Your line is very arbitrary. MRD has a good point.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Have you ever read Freakonomics? It reminds me of an experiment he talks about in the book where a day care had problems with parents not coming on time and so they decided to see what would happen if they began charging a $5 late fee. They were surprised to find that more parents began to come late and more frequently. The reason was that rather than disincentivizing the behavior they had put a price tag on the behavior that most parents decided was affordable.

It also makes me think of pro-bono clients I have had. One would think that people who are getting something free would be more appreciative and less demanding. The opposite is true. Boy did I ever learn this in the free third year practice I did. There is a rational relationship between things costing something and the rate at which people will consume them.

My point is that when you make health care free, you aren't just exchanging the cost of emergency room visits paid out of pocket for the cost of preventative care and emergency room visists, albeit fewer, paid up front. What you are doing is incentivizing people to consume as much health care as they possibly can. I can go to my doctor now and it costs me a $15 co-pay, but that is not for an unlimited number of times. I can't go there every day and pay that. After a certain number my cost goes way up because, of course, I begin to consume more health care than I am paying for. Without any financial disincentive to go to the doctor only one really needs to, consumption of the services will balloon which will mean scarcity of services, ie, the long lines you see in other countries who try to do this. You just can't convince me that it is cheaper.

I admit that I believe in hindsight that much of what we have done in Iraq was discretionary, elective spending that we couldn't really afford. Will some liberals who feel the same way, for the sake of consistency, join me in wondering whether massive social programming and spending is not equally elective and equally unafforable?

Who is making health care free? I think you seriously misunderstand Obama's plan.