Skip to comments.The health care reality conservatives ignore
Posted on 12/01/2013 4:49:10 PM PST by Innovative
The basic conservative position is that the more you let market forces operate, the better the outcome will be. "More markets" is the answer to everything: Let people buy insurance across state lines. Make it virtually impossible to sue for medical malpractice. Create more health savings accounts.
But where do you think the problems of America's health care system came from? It wasn't government that gave us nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and denials for pre-existing conditions.
Every one of our peer nations has a system with more government control than ours, ranging from almost completely socialized systems like Great Britain's to ones like those in Switzerland and the Netherlands, which resemble Obamacare but with tighter regulation.
The Affordable Care Act can certainly be improved. But in health care -- to paraphrase Ronald Reagan -- the free market isn't the answer to our problems. It is the problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
To make a long story short, he's a loopy commie lib.
“To make a long story short, he’s a loopy commie lib.”
And this article is an excellent example of it.
It’s good to get the straw man set up in the first paragraph like that. If he waited, his liberal audience might get confused.
Nice try CNN, but it is the government created entitlement mentality that’s given us the mess that both healthcare and the larger economy are today.
Free market drive to succeed for one’s own benefit is the only reason we have left what we do.
It wasn't government that gave us nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and denials for pre-existing conditions.Yes it was. Even Wikipedia cant deny that FDRs wage controls resulted in the rise of the morass of employer healthcare, just for starters.
This guy lives in a fact free zone. ie he’s a lib.
Initial coverage of preexisting conditions is like allowing people to buy home insurance AFTER their house burned down, then expect the insurance company to fully compensate them for their loss.
Obamacare is making big thing about covering preexisting conditions, but that is a one-time thing, then everyone will be obligated to buy insurance, and not what is appropriate for them, such as catastrophic insurance for young people, but a full comprehensive one, that Obama tells you that you should have.
The real problem is that it is not affordable. Should be called the “Prohibitively Expensive Act”.
and here is the Number One Problem with Liberals::
“Every one of our peer nations”
WE HAVE NO PEER NATIONS, America Stands Alone in the fight for FREEDOM.
Wow. I never see synthetic plagiarism from intellectual sieves who rely mental crutches.
“Concierge” Health Care is the wave of the future (and really just a throwback to the 50’s).
This article is just a bunch of lies.
Lol. Excellent analogy gymnastics.
That’s exactly right—no concept of reality.
Website broken or not is not the issue. It still remains a plan where one man pays for another. The point blank definition of Marxist. Millions will have their plans recancelled a year from now—those whose states complied. Many are already out of luck. Premiums will skyrocket. I have gotten many comments back asking where my proof is? The millions who are already paying higher premiums. The millions of cancellations—or soon to be. The fact the man lied—on tape. And the employer mandate hasn’t hit yet which is where the other large boot falls right on the American head. Now if you’re one of the parasites feeding off of us producers I’m sure you will defend ACA. As welfare receipients will defend welfare. Because that is the parasite mentality and there is no point even commenting back. Many argue that the healthcare system is broken—prior to ACA. With premiums and monopolies. They would be correct. And frankly neither party will address the real issues. But telling one man to pay for another is not the answer—it’s Marxism no matter how you try to spin that it is not. My fiction may become a reality as it did based on my avid research in history of 1917—Russia.
Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE. A true conservative’s weekly.
They are retreating from Obamacare and trying to shift the argument back to the opposition.
This should have been done years ago before they crammed the law through and down the throats of Americans.
Unfortunately, the republicans are stupid and don’t know how to counter this.
The conservatives should counter that we have the finest and most advanced healthcare system in the world which is being demolished by fantasy preachers of universal utopia.
Govt has been involved in health care for decades. you could say we already had a partially socialized system. And this is exactly why costs were high.
Drive govt out and costs will fall once again.
“It wasn’t government that gave us nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and denials for pre-existing conditions.”
Paul Waldman doesn’t know how to build a logical argument. Whose fault is that?
By definition you can not “insure” a pre-existing condition. You really need to focus on the health maintenance side of that. There’s no way to account for insuring something you know will happen without subsidy from another group. As to uninsured otherwise, setting mandates for minimum coverage does the opposite of making it affordable. So again, you need subsidies.
But Paul Waldman said it ain’t the government so it must not be!
Truth is...it wouldn’t have mattered what repubs said.
People won’t believe till they experience. So now that they are getting hot maybe something will finally change.
“peer nations”—Second time I’ve seen the phrase today. They must have stressed this at the meeting all the lib a$$ kissing ‘journalists’ attended last month.
And who is to say that allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and having reasonable tort reform won’t work, a leftist dork? It would certainly work better than Obamacare, abusive big government and Democrat tyranny. Forcing people to do what the state thinks is best for them when they can’t afford it, don’t want it, and know they can do better, is typical leftist lunacy.
Listen up leftists, Obama’s Democratcare isn’t going to work. A single payer system isn’t going to work, so you better extract your heads from Obama’s butt, and work with conservatives and the free market to get something that will work.
Healthcare as a problem is largely a supply-side problem. The barriers to entry into the healthcare market are so high that the supply of services is extremely tight. This is largely due to regulation, licensing that limits the supply, and huge capital costs I terms of tine and education. India produces many more doctors and engineers than we do and medical costs are extremely low, for example. The quality of care is very good. Reduce the barriers to entry and the system gets cheaper.
Reagan’s family should sue this SOB for false witness. Reagan never said any such thing. Reagan was opposed to medicare originally. Reagan said, “government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem. What a damned liar this socialist is!!!
nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and denials for pre-existing conditions.
We have that many uninsured because many have had their policies cancelled.
Just like dominoes. Wage control, Great society, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, obamacare, country....all fall down.
I think a strong case could be made that it is the government that cause that
There is absolutely no reason to discuss "free-market solutions" in the context of almost any insurance coverage. ObamaCare only magnifies a problem that already exists in the U.S. and isn't going to get any better no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves otherwise. The REAL problem with our health care system is that it is built on third-party payment as the norm -- regardless of whether that third party is a government or a private company.
All of the basic principles of economics get thrown out the window once you eliminate the direct relationship between the buyer (the patient) and the seller (the medical professional). Once you have a third party involved, the buyer no longer considers pricing and quality together, and the seller no longer worries about quality because payments are made under a rate schedule that has nothing to do with quality.
I disagree with you on that one. Health care is definitely a demand-side problem, because there's no constraint on demand when people don't pay their medical costs out of their own pockets.
The US graduates about 17,364 MDs and about 4,773 DOs. Yes, India graduates about 6,000 more doctors, but India's population is 3.9 times as large as the US population. US per capita GDP is 33.5 times India's per capita GDP ($49,965 versus $1,489).
The level of medical care offered to Indian visitors and medical tourists is the crème de la crème of their medical system.
Health care in the US hasn't seen a free market since the 19th century. The chances that we'll go back to 19th century freedoms is closer to nil.
Since the US spends twice both as a % of GDP and in $ terms than any other country, and ranks 51st in life expectancy things can clearly improve. And they're going in the wrong direction under Obamacare. But Indian health care spending benchmarks aren't very likely in the US. Who would ever become a doctor? Who would ever stay a doctor?
To the progressive, freedom itself is the problem. It is intolerable. Regulate, dictate, ban, limit, total equality of condition.
A nation with a population of more than 300 million, open borders, benefits to all who enter illegally, nearly $100 trillion in previous unfunded wet dream utopian entitlements, and nearly half the population on the taxpayer dole. Could someone point out which “peer nation” this ass-clown refers to? For some reason it escapes me
Healthcare's woes began during WWII, when FDR initiated wage controls. That forced employers to offer healthcare benefits to attract scarce workers.
It exacerbated when Medicare/Medicaid were enacted. Religious charities, families, and local communities via donations from both individual and businesses took care of the poor and seniors.
If we truly had a free market healthcare system, everybody would be covered. And there would be none of these chronic conditions or diseases plaguing us today.
It amazes me that these people don't see that it is the payoff that makes the creation and improvement of artificial hips and things far more wondrous than that possible.
These innovations are not happening overseas. The best techniques, treatments, and innovations are a result of the American system, the best medical care the world has ever known.
They might sell hips cheaper in England, but someone else made it possible for them to even have that option. Government care will strive for equilibrium of cost, which will be a combination of medical cost + graft + political payoff....the old Soviet system. When all medical systems go that route, then the government systems of the world will race toward stasis.
A real capitalist system is not the so-called "unfettered capitalism" of liberal horror stories, but is the "reality based capitalism" of a moral people. A reality based capitalist health system will take pre-existing conditions into account and will gravitate toward a solution that provides the most coverage for the most people at the least cost resulting in the best sustainable profit.
So, this will fall back on me. I will get to decide to buy the plan that best fits my economic situation. Or, I can have a government bureaucrat decide they won't spend more money on me and will give me pain pills. Would I rather they decide, or would I rather that I decide? That's simple. I know that I trust myself.
So, my plan will provide some level of money beyond which they will pay for no more medical care that year. The maximum might be a million or 2 million or whatever I choose. Likewise, there were already exchanges available for pre-existing conditions. So far as those who had no health insurance, there were many who chose intentionally not to have it. There were a number who would have liked care but didn't have the money to buy anything expensive, so settled for catastrophic care insurance, those who were unable to free up money for other than basic necessities, and those who are mentally or otherwise incompetent who simply don't think on these things. This last group will not sign up for a government program either.
The group of concern is those who are stuck at an income level that takes care only of basic necessities of life. A reality-based capitalist system realizes there are times when these people will need regular medical care, and times when they will need costly medical care. Charity will minister to some of these.
For that group that
Is that you, Milton? ;)
Yeah, the same is true for pharmaceuticals.
I wish that wasn’t the case and don’t know of a free market way to change it. It would be nice if the medical products were priced the same everywhere...higher overseas, less expensive here.
How could that be changed, and why wouldn’t you want to change it?
I disagree with CNN but I disagree strongly with Limbaugh and other conservatives who pooh pooh medical costs and expect people to pay the outragoulsy inflated medical costs out of pocket.
It is easy for a multibillionaire to say pay for it, when in my state people lose homes and assets regularly to hosptials and medical collection agencies. These are not people who want to shirk paying reasonable costs but since there is no competition the prices are outrageous. No CAT scan should cost more than 100 dollars for example and a well run OR suite should never cost more than 200 per hour.
Easy to laugh about paying hosptia bills Rush, but you haven’t watched friends lose everything, businesses, homes and othter assets
It's obviously both. It was a screwed up, inefficient, dysfunctional system before Obamacare, but Obamacare has made it far worse than it was. Big jumps in premiums for more out of pocket liability and less access to quality care.
what an ignorant fool. If he thinks that government regulations and the inability of insurers to sell across state lines is not the fundamental problem then he should go jump off a cliff. He is too stupid to live
Of course it was government. The skyrocketing costs of virtually any health care, insurance, medical procedure, equipment, or disposable item is causally related to the fact that government reimburses the private entities who offer these services and products at multiple times retail, far in excess of what any free market would bear.
This creates a feeding frenzy of over-billing and rising prices as the health care industry becomes dependent on feeding at the government trough. It's corporate welfare, plain and simple.
Who are these idiots trying to fool? Low information voters, that's who. Health care costs started getting ridiculous just about the time government started subsidizing and over-regulating it.
It's the classic statist tactic of using government to create the "emergency", and then getting the People to beg for the government-imposed "solution", which of course entails even more control over our lives.
I can't believe these people could even write such tripe with a straight face.
When did Rush ever say that?
In a healthy healthcare system, people would pay routine medical costs out of pocket, and, because of a functioning free market, those costs would be reasonable. Insurance would only kick in for extraordinary costs e.g., you develop cancer or you need an expensive drug to control a chronic condition or you get in an accident or something.
Of course, Rush is rich enough to self-insure. But some sort of high-deductible protection is best for the rest of us, so we don't overpay premiums and don't go bankrupt if we do get sick. It should be fully portable and renewable. Prices for treatments should be fully transparent. You should be able to shop for coverage across state lines, state insurance commissioners be damned.
Same place every other major problem in the economy came from:
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Before the federal government started pouring billions into health care the actual cost of a doctor or hospital was reasonable and affordable.
People didn't need healthcare insurance for everyday medical needs - they could afford to pay the doctor or hospital directly.
Forty years ago it cost less than $200 for a woman to have a baby in a hospital. A doctor's visit for common medical problems could be aomewhere between $10 and $50 or so.
Federal money has distorted the cost of medical care just like it has distorted the cost of college and everthing else the federal government touches.
You are seeing today an all out attempt to marshal the forces of the opposition, using not merely the communists, or their fellow travelers-the deluded liberals,
the eggheads, and some of my good friends in both the Democratic
and Republican Parties who can become heroes over night in the eyes of the left-wing press if they will just join with the jackal pack.
-Joseph R. McCarthy
And that's exactly what HSAs are (were) for.
Did anyone ask the 50 million if they even want insurance? How many are rich and self-insure, how many are single young-immortals, how many are illegal aliens?
and denials for pre-existing conditions.
These people are guaranteed claims, usually $100K/yr. That's what High Risk Pools are for. Most states have one.
Don’t need to go back to the 19th century—simply before WW2 would suffice.
Third party is an issue, but at least with a private employer, they have choice in what sort of plan, or plans to offer, and work to get the lowest cost plan that will still meet the needs of their employees, present or future. A medical savings account, an expanded Flex plan sort of thing would probably be better, I'd agree, but still private employers paying all or part is still better than the government doing it. In the end, you can leave your employer, you can't leave the government.