Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Conservative Case For Single Payer Health Care (Its the Competitiveness, Stupid)
Harry's Place ^ | 06/16/2012 | Andrew McMurphy

Posted on 06/16/2012 7:50:50 PM PDT by goldstategop

On the surface, the title of this article seems paradoxical. How can any conservative in the USA even contemplate the concept of the government creating a single-payer health insurance system covering all Americans and, in effect, ending private major medical health insurance?

In this post I hope to make the conservative case for a single payer incontrovertible for those occupying the centre-right politically.

Conservatives are supposed to be the defenders of business. Yet our current health care system works as an albatross around the neck of American business. Likewise, the piecemeal reforms of ObamaCare seem only to make some problems even worse. Hence it is only a matter of time before a single-payer becomes inevitable in this country. Therefore conservatives need to position themselves and come to terms with this eventual reality. And if history is a judge, many times it takes, say, a Nixon to go to China or a Clinton to do welfare reform. A Republican president may be the one who puts single-payer in place down the road.

The case for a single payer from a centre-right perspective is as follows:

The current burden on American corporations

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, group health insurance is the single most expensive benefit offered to employees. General Motors’ cost alone to offer health insurance yearly to employees is $5 billion dollars. To put it in perspective, health care insurance alone, adds $1,500-$2,000 to the price of each car that comes off the assembly line.

A RAND study from 2009 found that companies with higher levels of participation in employee health insurance benefits had much slower economic growth then those companies and industries which had lower health insurance costs or participation to deal with.

Let’s face it, health insurance is a drag on American competitiveness. Every major trading partner of the United States has some form of government-organized health care, so why do we continue to saddle American corporations like working donkeys with such expensive costs?

The burden to entrepreneurship

Americans pride ourselves on being the land of opportunity and of Horatio Alger. Yet the truth is social democratic Denmark now has higher levels of entrepreneurship than the USA. One primary difference between a Danish entrepreneur and his/her American counterpart is health care. Because of universal health care, a Danish worker with health problems can strike out on their own anytime and start up a business. Americans with health problems have to weigh the cost and benefit of leaving their jobs and decide if they can afford or even qualify for an individual health insurance policy.

Americans are more and more making working decisions based on health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, over 78 percent of all small business have no employees. Thus entrepreneurs in America are more likely to have to buy individual health insurance policies, which are usually more expensive and difficult to obtain than group health insurance.

The freest economy in the world has national health care

It is no secret conservatives and libertarians in the USA ♥ Hong Kong. After all HK has Ricardian free trade, low levels of regulations, no capital gains tax and an individual flat tax. Every year when the Heritage Foundation releases its Index of Economic Freedom, HK always tops the list.

However, HK has a dirty little secret. It has a very good national health care system. HK citizens have some of the highest life expectancies in the world but their government health care system only costs about three percent of their GDP to operate (a sharp contrast to the 20 percent of GDP that USA health care costs are expected to be in the next decade).

The point of the HK example is that this beacon of capitalism manages to operate the freest economy in the world while offering and providing a British-style national health service. if one listens to rightwing shock radio or the rhetoric of the Tea Party, it is impossible for that to happen. After all government health care would turn America into a giant Gulag Archipelago.

American conservatives are free to believe that a single-payer system in America will lead to a road to serfdom. Just don’t tell the citizens of Hong Kong, OK? You may embarrass yourself.

Happier workers for business owners

In many areas of America, words like “free trade” and “globalization” are fighting words. Blue collar America lives everyday with the worry that they will show up at work and find a sign saying, “Moved to China: See ya, Don’t want to be ya.”

Those workers are then left to scramble to find a job, usually for less pay and lesser benefits. In the meantime they go on unemployment insurance and hope they can pay their COBRA premiums with their unemployment pay and their spouse’s salary. (COBRA allows Americans to keep their former employer-offered health insurance if they pay the full cost once they leave the company. Typically, employers pay 50% of an employees health insurance premiums.)

Let’s contrast this to the Danish workforce again. When leftwing journalist Bob Kuttner traveled to Denmark, he discovered something very interesting (and probably fascinating since Kuttner is an advocate of managed trade). What he found was the Danish labor movement is completely at ease with free trade and globalization. Part of this is because of Denmark’s very proactive labor retraining policies; but some of it has to do with the fact that a Danish worker’s health care is not tied to their employment. So if a Danish worker’s job is outsourced to Poland, at least some of the pain is mitigated by not having to worry about losing health insurance.

If conservatives would like to take the teeth out of the American labor movement, what better way than to eliminated their fears about free trade and the free market by supporting a single-payer?

If it’s good enough for Margret Thatcher…

The name Margaret Thatcher is said with much reverence in the USA by conservatives, almost with the same love as for Ronald Reagan. Yet Lady Thatcher always supported Britain’s National Health Service(NHS). In 1983, for example, as she geared up for her re-election campaign, Thatcher said, “The NHS is safe in our hands.”

Rather ironic that if Lady Thatcher were to change citizenship, move to the USA and try and run for office as a Republican, she probably could not win a GOP primary. She would be denounced as a crypto-commie by Tea Party activists for having once supported “socialized health care.”

Thatcher– much like the other iconic conservative statesmen of the 20th century in Europe, from Winston Churchill to Konrad Adenauer to Ludwig Erhard to Charles DeGaulle– made peace with their countries universal health care system. It is only in America where making peace with such an arrangement would be considered, “socialism” or “Marxism”.

The current system is unsustainable, a single-payer is coming– it’s only a matter of time. Conservatives forget that health care is not an example of a perfect market. It is not the same as shopping for a car, choosing an airline or deciding which brand of cereal to buy. Health care is the quintessential example of information asymmetry (PDF).

If conservatives and Republicans can’t talk about these things, they will cede the issue to liberals and Democrats.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: competitiveness; conservatism; deathpanels; deathpanelsbyromney; harrysplace; illegalaliencare; loserromney; nothealthcare; rinos4romneycare; romney; romney4dnc; romney4obama; romney4obamacare; romneybringsdeath; romneycare; romneycare4ever; romneycarer4u; romneydeathpanels; romneykilledgrandma; singlepayer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Not as heretical as it sounds. I think its coming since health care costs burden our private sector in ways that inhibit American competitiveness abroad. Our competitors in Europe and Asia don't have to worry about health insurance costs. The market which we conservatives revere, isn't always perfect. There is such thing as information asymmetry. We can continue to let escalating health care costs drag our economy down or we can have single payer health care. What's clear is we can no longer put off talking about what is surely inevitable.
1 posted on 06/16/2012 7:51:01 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Let's hear it for ROMNEYCARE and ROMNEY'S DEATH PANELS.


2 posted on 06/16/2012 7:56:14 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

KMA troll


3 posted on 06/16/2012 7:57:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

When the federal government ends all mandates surrounding health care, then we’ll see good things happen, and prices drop.

It is never, never, ever a good thing for the federal government to take over a share of the private sector.


4 posted on 06/16/2012 7:57:27 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What’s next, the conservatives case for free food? Geez.


5 posted on 06/16/2012 8:02:22 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Our competitors in Europe and Asia don't have to worry about health insurance costs.

China does not have Universal Government wide Coverage

And do you really want to argue in favor the European Economic model?

6 posted on 06/16/2012 8:04:14 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Single Payer is a failure waiting to exhaust the resources that sustain its mirage of success. The solution to our dysfunctional health care system is to require every consumer of health care to pay their own bills with their own money.

In reality, our health care system is the world’s finest. It is the payment system that is broken and I lay the blame directly on government intrusion starting in WW II when government changed the income tax law to allow the premiums for health insurance to be exempt from taxation if the employer paid them directly.

First and foremost, we must require that everyone pay their own bills. We may want to allow all health care costs to be tax exempt, but it must be at the personal level so the proper financial incentives are rebuilt and retained. This can be done by allowing everyone to open a Medical Savings Account.

Having everyone pay their own bills then puts the right incentives on government to properly recognize the core issue with health care costs- how to pay for the health care of the indigent, no matter what their age or legal status. This must be funded somehow. That is the only debate issue for the public to address. But you would be surprised at how much regular health care expenses will drop when people are spending their own money out of their own accounts.


7 posted on 06/16/2012 8:04:14 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop


8 posted on 06/16/2012 8:05:22 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You’re a moron.


9 posted on 06/16/2012 8:05:46 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

10 posted on 06/16/2012 8:06:04 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

I’d support it - if we can get the rest of the world to eliminate the unfair advantage they give their corporations and workers.

Saddling American corporations with external costs, whether they are imposed by the market or by government, make no sense whatsoever.

RomneyCare and Obamacare were disasters. But we do need to talk seriously about how we’re going to get health costs under control, enhance American competitiveness abroad and make it possible for Americans to be productive without worrying about whether catastrophic health care expenses will jeopardize their families’ future.

Conservatives and Republicans should confront the issue. We saw what happens when its left up to Democrats and leftists to wreck one seventh of our nation’s economy. We can’t afford to let them do that to this country again.


11 posted on 06/16/2012 8:07:08 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This guy might as well write, “I’d like to make a pro-life case for abortion on demand. It’s not as heretical as it sounds...”

Yes.

It.

Is.


12 posted on 06/16/2012 8:07:08 PM PDT by ziravan (Are you better off now than you were $9.4 Trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The Backstabber-Cheater Romney DESTROYED health care
in Massachusetts.

LET HIM DESTROY IT EVERYWHERE?

goldstategop: “Yes. Because he IS RomneyCARE and OUR KING.”


13 posted on 06/16/2012 8:10:27 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If healthcare is an albatross around the neck of business, that’s because of government.

It was government pay freezes that brought about employer-sponsored coverage in the first place. It’s government regulations that have raised the price of healthcare to unreasonable levels.

So your solution to government interference that created a heavy burden on business? Double down on government interference.

That does seem to be the philosophy of government at the present moment: we’re all double-downers now.


14 posted on 06/16/2012 8:13:12 PM PDT by ziravan (Are you better off now than you were $9.4 Trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Healthcare is no different as a product than say, hair care. It needs to be treated pretty much the same, regulation wise.


15 posted on 06/16/2012 8:14:07 PM PDT by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

The idiot who posted this article has another article on his website called “Want to improve your health? Join a union”

This poster is a Left wing propaganda robot. The contact information on ‘harry’s’ website is:

PO Box 40206
Washington, DC
20016
USA

He’s a troll.


16 posted on 06/16/2012 8:17:49 PM PDT by navyguy (The National Reset Button is pushed with the trigger finger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

17 posted on 06/16/2012 8:17:56 PM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziravan

An economic question isn’t the same as a moral one. There is no conservative case to be made for taking a human life.

Government already regulates health care. The question is whether it should also pay for it. There is already rationing in our health care system based on availability and price.

Every legitimate function the government performs that is universally accepted involves take care of the public interest. Building roads, dams, airports, electrification, prisons and schools are examples of things the government has run in the past and runs today. Health care, which affects every one is also a public interest.

No matter how its paid, we are all affected in one way or another.


18 posted on 06/16/2012 8:20:49 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What advantage is unfair? Why should we tell the world what they can and cannot give their own workers?


19 posted on 06/16/2012 8:22:52 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Jim Robinson
Saddling American corporations with external costs, whether they are imposed by the market or by government, make no sense whatsoever.

They took the tax deduction. The worker pays the taxes for single payer with insane tax rates while having NO say in how their medical dollar is spent or what kind of treatment they will get.

But we do need to talk seriously about how we’re going to get health costs under control, enhance American competitiveness abroad and make it possible for Americans to be productive without worrying about whether catastrophic health care expenses will jeopardize their families’ future.

My thoughts on the topic.

In a free society, health care choices are necessarily individual, but given the uneven chance that an individual will incur catastrophic healthcare expenses, individuals must pool resources to fund health coverage, usually by means of insurance.

When healthcare was funded by a single family, funds were necessarily limited; a family would not starve its children to treat the sick or aged. The amount of effort to save a single life that could be spent has changed for two reasons:

1. Technology has vastly increased the amount that could be spent on any one case.

2. Pooling healthcare resources has vastly increased the money available to be spent on any one case.

In effect, the “family” now paying for the service is the entire insurance pool. That pool, or its agent, the insurer, then has a say in what they will fund, just as the family once did. So now, instead of a family refusing to starve, we have an insurer refusing to go broke. It's a tradeoff. We have more funds available for any one individual, but less control over how they are spent. As long as technology is increasing the upper bounds of what might be spent, we, as a pool, face hard choices about what we can afford. When a moral imperative to make an infinite commitment to save any one life meets a technical ability to bankrupt the pool, somebody MUST lose in the pursuit of saving that one life.

As the pool enlarges to a global perspective, the moral problem takes on a new dimension, and "the least of mine," takes on a whole new meaning. The money spent on Terri Shiavo could feed, clothe, medicate, and educate ten thousand children who otherwise will die. So as long as it's the family's money, that's OK, but when it becomes your money and the power to take it is outside your control, that's quite another thing.

We have to find ways to make hard moral choices in order to contain costs. It's inescapable.

Seventy percent of your medical dollar (or nearly eight percent of the national economy) is spent upon people who die within six months. Meanwhile, pregnant mothers still don't get decent prenatal care that would prevent life-long medical expenses and aliens enter the country carrying hepatitis, parasites, and antibiotic-resistant strains of infectious diseases that go untreated. Hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy caring for the indigent. Private insurance rates bear much of that cost as a hidden tax in hospital charges.

Distorted treatment priorities are only part of the picture. The system provides few financial incentives to promote health. Proper diet, regular exercise, and annual check-ups do not reduce the price of coverage. Similarly, there are few penalties for high-risk behavior.

The system is insane. Government is the problem and socializing medicine will make it worse.

In a free market, there are usually two underlying factors determining the scope of coverage:

1. How the costs were incurred: whether the medical problem was no fault of the insured person's own choices or whether it was the result of an irresponsible and avoidable choice.

2. The cost-effectiveness and extent of the adjustment: whether it's risky or experimental or if less expensive substitutes exist.

The cost of coverage is determined by the scope of covered risks, the probability of a claim, and the average expense of the treatment. The price of coverage is offset by investment returns on the cash in the coverage pool. For example, insurers may charge more to cover high-risk activities such as smoking or skydiving. A policy may also limit the extent of elective procedures such as certain forms of cosmetic surgery. Unfortunately, pricing many other distinguishing risks is not allowed because the State enlarges the pool paying into the system to the point of the absurd. It closely regulates the terms of the contracts based upon the political power of the groups at risk: those seeking to get others to subsidize the cost of their choices.

It doesn't matter if the risk is riding a motorcycle without a helmet, not taking prescribed medication, or bare-backing in a bath-house, high-risk individual choices cost the insurance pool that pays for the treatment and poses additional risks to the public at large. A State-financed or regulated system, heavily influenced by political interests, is unlikely to assess those risks objectively.

Once those risks are assumed, there is the additional unnecessary legal overhead associated with malpractice settlements. Since humans will probably never know everything about their bodies, there always will be uncertainty and risk associated with the delivery of medical products and services. The assumption that anything less than a perfect cure constitutes medical malpractice is one expensive fantasy. At some point, the choice exercised by those who make healthcare choices must bring its own responsibilities.

The insurer may have reason to lose that lawsuit. First, the settlement is often less than the cost of a court battle. That means that more such cases will be brought because a new precedent, whether due to the cause of the loss, the size of the settlement, or the type of restorative measures demanded, means that all such cases must be covered the same way by all insurers. They must then raise rates and the total industry cash flow then increases. Insurers make money on that cash flow, as well as on investments in companies that treat covered losses. If that sounds like a conflict of interest, it can be.

Free Health Care

Healthcare services don't come free; somebody has to pay for them. While central planning in healthcare works no better than it did in the Soviet Union, the United States, torn between socialized medicine and corporate welfare, has some of the finest care available, but by far the most expensive. While the US bears much of the research and product development costs for the rest of the world, in no way can it be considered a cost-effective system by world standards. There is a lot that can be done to improve its efficiency without resorting to the mediocre treatment characteristic of socialized medicine.

When the level of free service is equivalent to what can be purchased by private parties, there is then no reason to invest in private care. Socialized medicine makes all healthcare policy decisions political thus masking the cost of individual decisions by placing the burden for their consequences upon everybody. That's why AIDS research is starving the search to cure cancer even though the latter clearly costs society far more, which destroys the wealth that funds AIDS research. Government intervention into free-market risk management distorts the cost assessments that help industry identify costly health risks to invest in eliminating them. Treating medical problems is a human need capable of virtually infinite costs, simply because life is fatal. As medical technologies proliferate no insurance pool will be able to afford all the treatments its users could desire.

The best way to reduce the cost of treatment is to prevent the need, a focus upon which our physician-dominated system is lacking. These activities include personal habits that preclude problems (exercise, diet, posture, marriage, oral hygiene), mitigating measures designed to keep a problem from getting worse (special diets, spinal correction, dental care), and diagnostic tools to detect potential problems.

Many nutritional supplements don’t get onto the market as substitutes for prescription drugs because food is not patentable. Decades later, expensive drugs are qualified by the FDA that have side effects the natural products don't have! The fix starts with private property rights. Many of these nutrients are only in unique local habitats. In that respect, the combination of resources and processes that support production of a particular nutrient should be patentable just like a mining claim. It certainly provides reason to understand and care for that habitat instead of ruthlessly exploiting it. You saw it here first.

It is within the preventative realm that the market has operated with relative freedom, but it has suffered from the distortions of treatment costs downstream. New preventative technology usually lacks physician or insurer acceptance, has high initial costs, or suffers from the perverse result of providing insurers reason to cancel coverage as is the case with diagnostic equipment. This is because minimizing total cost to the patient does not drive the profit motives to coverage providers, indeed, quite the opposite.

Only patients can have their own best interests at heart. That's why individual payment systems are the least expensive in delivered cost across total populations as long as each patient understands and is motivated to adopt the least cost option.

Unfortunately, the patient has no idea what a competitive price for most medical services might be, in part because of the distortions due to the buying power of large pools. HMOs, MediCare, and hospital bills (padded to cover the cost of services to the indigent) have absolutely destroyed the patient's ability to weigh competing prices of medical services. Have you ever looked at an Explanation of Benefits form? Did the prices bear any resemblance to reality? Have you ever asked your physician what he or she might take for the service in cash? If so, were you surprised at the difference? So how can anyone objectively judge what is in their own best interest?

You now know why the system is insane.

The Deep End of the Pool

Treatment of the medically indigent is totally dependent upon the insurance pool of last resort: the taxpayer. Although minimal free healthcare services cost taxpayers, confining infectious diseases and preventing lifelong problems in children saves taxpayers money in the long run. There is an obvious peril, however, in making free health care services available to anyone.

Controlling healthcare costs thus faces an inherent conflict, regardless of whether healthcare services are private or socialized: A high price at the initial point-of-service inhibits people from seeking help early, when most medical problems are less expensive to confine or treat. Conversely, pricing medical care free of charge would make containing costs impossible. The key to resolving that paradox is in managing the triage function in a manner that serves more purposes than the system does now.

Triage is the process of evaluating patients and determining what kind of diagnostic work or treatment they need. It is done by firemen or EMTs in an emergency. It should be performed a qualified technician or nurse before any person makes it into an emergency room. Any person who doesn't qualify for emergency treatment could then be directed to an urgent care facility or asked to make an appointment.

Triage should be free. The provider must have no relationship to any downstream medical provider. They would provide pricing information on the various alternatives in the process, whether a visit with a doctor, chiropractor, nutritionist, or purchasing lab tests. Triage would thus be little different than walking into a store and deciding what to buy, if anything.

The one problem with putting triage in front of a physician visit is that when most people get sick they want to see a doctor right away. The way to meet that demand is by automating the triage function. Many people have the education to make confined medical choices. An insurer could provide qualified subscribers access to online diagnostic information that would help them research their medical problem, select the appropriate specialist, make an appointment, or communicate about problem to a triage specialist. The software might also test the users' comprehension by which to qualify for the option to make more decisions for themselves. They could schedule diagnostic tests so that a physician could make a decision without a visit. Putting test and treatment protocols online thus would improve both patient education and physician accountability.

Such testing also assesses the effectiveness of the educational tools by which to market better services, reason to research, develop, and improve the quality of online education tools. If copyright for such information bundling and testing were confined for, let's say, five to seven years, the provider has reason to invest in improving proprietary tools, while the benefits are not retained from the public at large for an unreasonable period.

Increasing use of nurse practitioners to screen incoming patients would save both time and money as well as handle the indigent patient fairly. Here we come to the manner in which the scope of patient care for the indigent must be confined to a rational minimum. We have a right to be free, but we don't have a right to free care. The only way to manage the cost of medical treatment for the indigent is to define what kind of services they may have very carefully. It is a political decision.

Where the healthcare industry is truly responsible to the public is in informing our representatives of the relative cost of various healthcare options by which they can then define the scope of coverage in budgetary legislation. Providers should effectively give us a budget for what they can accomplish for a given amount of money, what would be effectively indigent healthcare for bid. Most healthcare purchases today are not made by the user, but by an interest without accountability for acting as the user's agent: their employer. To combine the benefits of pooling with visible pricing means more than making the purchase price of healthcare options visible, it is to return to the user control of the buying decision. We need to expand the concept of the Medical Savings Account to include pretax purchase of healthcare on the part of the employee and end employer purchase of healthcare.

One way to resolve that customer alienation from reality, and provide private providers a way to contain costs, would be to market coverage from a menu of narrowly defined policies. Consumers would combine these policies into a package to suit their individual preferences. By defining coverage pools according to the choices people make, those behaviors that unnecessarily cost the total system would be borne by those who choose to incur those costs.

For example, people who don't want extreme measures taken to save their lives or don't need coverage to treat STDs, obesity, infertility treatments, or caring for children, wouldn't have to pay for them. Those who don’t want elective cosmetic surgery wouldn't buy that policy. If getting regular exercise assured a lower cost of coverage it would motivate the sedentary to start working to qualify for that pool. Forcing people to confront the cost of their choices is an important way to prevent expensive problems. That process reduces the total cost of the entire system. Pricing each distinct need focuses research dollars to fix the problems that have the most potential, whether glamorous university-research or a simple educational tool.

It may be true that America's research is carrying much of the rest of the world stuck with socialized medical care, but it is product development that pays for it. No political system is as efficient at optimizing competing demands on capital as is the marketplace.

There will still need to be restrictions on customized customer pools for the sale of health insurance to preclude exclusion of people who had no choice in their ailments, such as those who suffer congenital diseases. That such groups exist does not discount the value of pricing services by behavior because it motivates healthy decisions that increase the total wealth that ultimately must pay for those who can't.

20 posted on 06/16/2012 8:22:59 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Government ONLY regulates health care because
of the BACKSTABBER ROMNEY who sold out the public,
as he did when he destroyed the Mass Constitution
to impose his gay marriage agenda.

SHAME ON YOU FOR SUPPORTING HIS DEATH PANELS
and claiming they are ‘vitamins’ and good for us all.


21 posted on 06/16/2012 8:23:31 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"Hence it is only a matter of time before a single-payer becomes inevitable in this country. Therefore conservatives need to position themselves and come to terms with this eventual reality. And if history is a judge, many times it takes, say, a Nixon to go to China or a Clinton to do welfare reform. A Republican president may be the one who puts single-payer in place down the road.

Master Goebbels would be so proud!

"health care costs burden our private sector in ways that inhibit American competitiveness abroad. Our competitors in Europe and Asia don't have to worry about health insurance costs."

Yeah, I heard there's lots of other free shit over there too.

"We can continue to let escalating health care costs drag our economy down or we can have single payer health care."

They escalate, because of the particulars of govm't interference. They're designed to run up the costs deliberately to consolidate the monopoly. If you like single payer so much, why don't you just step up and volunteer to be that individual!

22 posted on 06/16/2012 8:23:38 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

THE REAL DEAL:


Emergency room visits grow in Mass. New insurance law did not reduce number of users
The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts,
despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use."


Back to the ObamaCare Future (price controls in Massachusetts)
Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for
ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.
Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard
price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have
the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill
that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician
groups and some specialty providers.

It doesn't even count as an irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending"


"The Huge Middle Class Tax Increase Coming Our Way With ObamaCare
The former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, warns today on the effect ObamaCare
will have on our economy and health care. These facts should be painfully obvious to
those with even one iota of common sense. This bill will lead to a huge middle class tax increase:
Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle
class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that
failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of
health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the
gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would
not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.

The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much
faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate
as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell
the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate
did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will
make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. "


"DEATH PANELS OPEN FOR BUSINESS IN MASSACHUSETTS
In August Sarah Palin wrote extensively about the incredible danger that ObamaCare
would lead to what amounts to "death panels." This of course caused great controversy
with many claiming Palin was either "crazy" or talking about the "end of life"
discussions that were provided for within House Resolution 3200, the prototype
ObamaCare bill.
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan
that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is
dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of
health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care
will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the
most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The
America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can
decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether
they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. .
Now we have news from Massachusetts, the home of RomneyCare, which should be
looked at as a shining example of why ObamaCare will be an epic failure. Soaring costs
both to the taxpayers and patients was inevitable, and now the effects of these are coming home to roost.
You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way,"


"You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way," said Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess.

The state's ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price
for patients: Controlling Massachusetts' soaring medical costs, many health care leaders
believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any
hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost
hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital
care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance
policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers. ."


"State plan may place limits on patients' hospital options( Mass. RomneyCare )"


"Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts [Romneycare]
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for
Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its
typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this
year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made
our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we
neither need nor want-or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan-we
would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-
care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).

We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We
always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't
carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular
monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns
a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable
energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not
wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws? "


"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."


A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.


Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America [Romney brings Mass. to its knees]
The Bay State's mandatory insurance law is raising costs, limiting access, and lowering care.

Sedalia, Colo. - In his recent speech to Congress, President Obama could have promoted
healthcare reforms that tapped the power of a truly free market to lower costs and
improve access. Instead, he chose to offer a national version of the failing
"Massachusetts plan" based on mandatory health insurance. This is a recipe for disaster.

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health
insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a
utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite -
skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what
constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for
special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required
package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither
need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment -
raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory
insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. ."


"'Severe' doc shortage seen hiking wait time The Boston Herald ^ | 9/15/09 | Christine McConville As the state's shortage of primary care doctors grows, people are waiting longer for medical care, according to a new survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society. "The shortage is getting more severe," said Dr. Mario Motta, the medical society's president. The state's health care dilemma can serve as a valuable lesson for a nation whose residents are locked in a frenzied debate about health care reform, he added."


"Health costs to rise again.( RomneyCare )
The state's major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year,
prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state's landmark health care law
passed two years ago, as well as President Obama's effort to overhaul health care. In
addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein
in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears
about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill."


"Nation's ill-advised to follow Mass. plan [Health plan a failure]
September 17, 2009 The canary is dead.
Massachusetts, the model for the ObamaCare universal insurance plan, is the canary in
the health care coal mine. Yesterday, its obit appeared on the front page of both The Wall
Street Journal and The Boston Globe-Democrat.

Both papers reported that our Commonwealth Care reform isn't working as planned. A
new law that was supposed to control costs and drive prices down (sound familiar?) has
instead sent costs soaring. "



"Bay State Insurance Premiums Highest in Country - Boston Globe August 22, 2009
Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country,
according to a new analysis that highlights the state's challenge in trying to rein in medical costs
after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone...
The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation,
showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008,
40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent..."


"Massachusetts: the laboratory for ObamaCare
Cato Institute looks a little farther down the coast to Massachusetts, where the state began its own health-care reform complete
with individual mandates and a government plan.
Cato calls it an "almost perfect" mirror of ObamaCare, complete with promises of reducing cost and extending care - that failed in both respects:
Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums. …


"Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times [RomneyCare]
"If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts.
In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
.... Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average
in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans.
"


"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state's marquee universal health care program afloat financially.

The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where "patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization."
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would "dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care."
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that "consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system." Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.


"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...


"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

0What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."


A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

brbr/b

23 posted on 06/16/2012 8:27:21 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Mitt, aren’t you too busy on the campaign trail to be posting comments on the internet?


24 posted on 06/16/2012 8:27:28 PM PDT by eclecticEel (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: 7/4/1776 - 3/21/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

There is NO “conservative case” for single payer healthcare.

Just the opposite — there should be many health insurance providers, and it should be allowed to purchase insurance out of state, which is not currently allowed, as well as multi-tier options, such as allowing people to purchase just catastrophic care insurance, etc. Allow more competition, more options, do something about frivolous lawsuits, and we don’t have to worry about out of control healthcare.

Socialism is NOT the answer.

Of course we are all paying for the healthcare of


25 posted on 06/16/2012 8:27:32 PM PDT by Innovative (None are so blind that will not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Nothing is ever more expensive than when it’s free and we have way too much debt to be able to afford it. Just look at what’s happening in Europe and then say it’s a good idea.


26 posted on 06/16/2012 8:27:53 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

That’s a lot of links to articles.


27 posted on 06/16/2012 8:32:20 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
This kind of conclusion usually arises out of the failure of the analyst to consider the fundamental differences between:

1. Prepaid Medical Care plans (which ignore individual risk) and

2. Medical Care insurance (which accounts for individual risk).

Compound that with erroneous cost comparisons that fail to account for the cost of using the courts and the criminal code as your primary vehicles for enforcing payment (when folks end up cheating the tax system).

The proponents usually end up puffing their chests out and telling us just how smart they are and we'd better listen.

First of all, they aren't that smart. Secondly I do not want to pay their medical bills. Third, if they need government medical care there are plenty of other countries to bother.

28 posted on 06/16/2012 8:33:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Most likely there's a substantial cost of government regulation worked into every piece of healthcare you get.

Wonder how the costs would drop if the government regulatory costs were removed?

You need to answer that.

29 posted on 06/16/2012 8:37:57 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You present a very nice liberal argument for pan-government intervention into everybody’s lives and wallet. You justify it by saying that’s been the way that we’ve been going anyway.

After all, what’s a little more government interference in our lives.

You’re welcome to your opinion. It is somewhat amusing to see you try to pass off overt Keynesian liberalism as something even resembling a conservative philosophy. The fact that you have to start your argument by denying the heretical nature of your argument says much.


30 posted on 06/16/2012 8:38:54 PM PDT by ziravan (Are you better off now than you were $9.4 Trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Don’t Single Payer countries control costs by rationing access to health care?


31 posted on 06/16/2012 8:42:35 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The problem is that all prescriptions which focus on health insurance, rather than actual health care, are certain to lead to bad outcomes. In some ways Obamacare managed to combine the worst features of single payer health insurance with the worst features of an imperfect market.

The problem with health care costs is that everyone seems to operate under the delusion that we have a free market in health care. Government regulation creates an economically artificial oligopoly (called the medical profession), which actually functions more like a monopoly (”reasonable and customary” is price-fixing).

Yes, such regulation is needed for the public good. We do not want quacks opening up medical offices. But, as in the case of utilities, the creation of a restriction of suppliers in the public interest should be combined with a regulation of prices in the public interest. (I would actually argue that rates charged by any profession the exercise of which is restricted to state-issued license-holders should be subject to regulation.)

Likewise, most advanced medical technology, including drugs, are sold under government grants of monopolies called “patents”. Yes, there is a socially useful purpose in granting such monopolies (on actual devices, or artificial substances, not on business plans, not on algorithms) enshrined in our Constitution— to encourage invention and discovery — but in the case of products for which there is inelastic demand (like the best available treatment for some disease), the grant of a monopoly should come with regulation of the price.

Fix these problems, and an insurance market, and folks paying for their own health care as they did before FDR’s wage freeze pushed companies into offering health insurance benefits and further distorted the imperfect market created by state-granted oligopolies, should be able to deliver good health care at reasonable cost.


32 posted on 06/16/2012 8:54:49 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
This is a good argument for the wrong premise. The information presented in this piece offers compelling evidence for eliminating employer-sponsored medical insurance entirely. That is the quickest and easiest way to get rid of this "burden on U.S. corporations."

Medical insurance is a completely flawed industry and will never have any basis in sound economics. The "natural" influences of the different players (patients, doctors and insurance companies) drive the entire industry to one or both of these inevitable ends: (1) increases in cost, and (2) reduction in quality of care. Changing the system so that a single government-run "insurer" replaces private insurers doesn't change this.

33 posted on 06/16/2012 9:13:19 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; ...

He is making an indictment of the employer based health care which is pretty easy to do. One thing he misses, without a government mandate employers don’t have the burden he describes.

The alternatives to that are : market based consumer health care or socialized government run single payer health care, a medicare or medicaid for all. The first means each individual negotiating with a private health insurance company much like auto insurance, not a pretty option either. I don’t see voters going for that as they would have to compete with the massive medicare insurance pool which would crush them.

Not to worry, Obama-care leads to socialized medicare. It destroys the current system with all it’s mandates.


34 posted on 06/16/2012 9:15:49 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
There is already rationing in our health care system based on availability and price.

The distinction between 'rationing' by a free market and rationing by a government bureaucrat is that the free market responds (via the clear signal of profit spreads) where 'availability' (is this your word for scarcity?) indicates improvements can be made.

If low 'availability' generates high prices, the free market responds by entrepreneurial efforts to lower costs (which, by virtue of competition, drives down prices) or capitalist investment in increasing the 'availability' of the service or good.

The government's response to low 'availibilty' is to just lower the hospitals bandage allotment. There is no mechanism outside the bureaucrats whim to decide how many bandages are 'enough'.

The capitalist system, which is what conservatives support, identifies the need for increased production with the profits realized from the difference between costs of production and the price generated by supply and demand. Whether more wealth should go into creating bandages, or into creating entertainment, is the sum of countless individual decisions made in a relentless pursuit of happiness.

The federal government compels hospitals to provide goods and services to anyone who enters, irrespective of their ability or willingness to pay for them. Imagine if the same requirement were placed on restaurants. Would we be surprised to see meals become more expensive for those who actually paid their tab?

35 posted on 06/16/2012 9:28:50 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

A RAND study from 2009 found that companies with higher levels of participation in employee health insurance benefits had much slower economic growth then those companies and industries which had lower health insurance costs or participation to deal with.

The simple conservative solution is to separate employment and insurance. Require all employee benefits to be simple payment with no benefits.


36 posted on 06/16/2012 9:55:38 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Singapore is a dictatorship. We are not. You can’t have nationalized health care when the voters elect the people who grant benefits. It’s no different than public employee unions. The union bosses elect the people who negotiate with them.


37 posted on 06/16/2012 9:58:23 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
The simple conservative solution is to separate employment and insurance. Require all employee benefits to be simple payment with no benefits.

No, since your solution can only be implemented via Government fiat or legislation, that is not the conservative solution but the statist solution.

I like my employer insurance just as it is, as a benefit provided by my employer.

The free-market approach, much less government interference, is the only conservative solution.

Health insurance or health coverage or health benefits are not a right, they are a privilege.
38 posted on 06/16/2012 10:01:34 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Fair enough as long as that benefit is included as taxable income.


39 posted on 06/16/2012 10:14:32 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What's clear is we can no longer put off talking about what is surely inevitable.

IBTZ

This is the logic used every time the government wants more, centralized, power.

40 posted on 06/16/2012 10:29:03 PM PDT by Aglooka ("I was out numbered 5-to-1, I got 4.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
They took the tax deduction. The worker pays the taxes for single payer with insane tax rates while having NO say in how their medical dollar is spent or what kind of treatment they will get.

The taxes are supposed to fund universal access. But as we know from the Canadian experience, it hasn't guaranteed it or ensured optimal outcomes. No health care system is going to be perfect. But you don't hear Canadians wanting to return to what they had before.

My thoughts on the topic.

In a free society, health care choices are necessarily individual, but given the uneven chance that an individual will incur catastrophic healthcare expenses, individuals must pool resources to fund health coverage, usually by means of insurance.

Private insurance is often duplicate, wasteful and generates a lot of paperwork because doctors and hospitals have to deal with different companies to pay them. And they still must look anyway to the government as a provider of last resort in the case of the indigent. Medicaid is essentially single payer for the indigent in America.

When healthcare was funded by a single family, funds were necessarily limited; a family would not starve its children to treat the sick or aged. The amount of effort to save a single life that could be spent has changed for two reasons:

In the old days, life was far simpler and people could make decisions about their health care all by themselves. Its vastly different today.

1. Technology has vastly increased the amount that could be spent on any one case.

The best technology increases costs. People want the best health care for themselves and their loved ones - its human nature. Even with the best of intentions, this is part of health care its very difficult to get under control. And as health care technology improves, so do the available choices health care consumers face.

2. Pooling healthcare resources has vastly increased the money available to be spent on any one case.

In effect, the “family” now paying for the service is the entire insurance pool. That pool, or its agent, the insurer, then has a say in what they will fund, just as the family once did. So now, instead of a family refusing to starve, we have an insurer refusing to go broke. It's a tradeoff. We have more funds available for any one individual, but less control over how they are spent. As long as technology is increasing the upper bounds of what might be spent, we, as a pool, face hard choices about what we can afford. When a moral imperative to make an infinite commitment to save any one life meets a technical ability to bankrupt the pool, somebody MUST lose in the pursuit of saving that one life.

Whether the payer is private - like an insurance company or public - like the government, there is always going to be rationing. Resources are finite. People can accept it if they know every one else plays by the same rules. Who do they want to be the health care system's umpire? There is going to be a gatekeeper and with the health system as complex as it is today, there no quick fixes to the issue of the distribution of health care resources. That is a given.

As the pool enlarges to a global perspective, the moral problem takes on a new dimension, and "the least of mine," takes on a whole new meaning. The money spent on Terri Shiavo could feed, clothe, medicate, and educate ten thousand children who otherwise will die. So as long as it's the family's money, that's OK, but when it becomes your money and the power to take it is outside your control, that's quite another thing.

There are trade-offs. Given how the government handled the Terri Schiavo case, I would there is a great deal of distrust among conservatives over handing a sensitive area of life to the purview of government. And my view without rules in place to prevent abuses, its a long time before single payer happens in this country.

We have to find ways to make hard moral choices in order to contain costs. It's inescapable.

I already mentioned rationing. There are going to be restrictions on specialist care. Now, that's not what I would prefer but some things are going to happen to hold costs in line.

Seventy percent of your medical dollar (or nearly eight percent of the national economy) is spent upon people who die within six months. Meanwhile, pregnant mothers still don't get decent prenatal care that would prevent life-long medical expenses and aliens enter the country carrying hepatitis, parasites, and antibiotic-resistant strains of infectious diseases that go untreated. Hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy caring for the indigent. Private insurance rates bear much of that cost as a hidden tax in hospital charges.

That's exactly the argument for single payer care. The private insurance system not only imposes hidden taxes, it can no longer shoulder the load of the health care system. If the taxpayers are going to be asked to pick up the tab for health care costs, they want something to contain costs, that is easy to understand and that works. There is no consensus now on how a single payer system should be structured so in the meantime we'll muddle through with what we've got.

Distorted treatment priorities are only part of the picture. The system provides few financial incentives to promote health. Proper diet, regular exercise, and annual check-ups do not reduce the price of coverage. Similarly, there are few penalties for high-risk behavior.

There are also lawsuits against doctors which serve to drive up costs. Our system is incentivized to make people wait until they get sick and when they do get sick, they either don't have insurance due to pre-existing conditions or the government ends up picking the cost for what they can't afford to pay. Now that is insane and every good conservative would say the ideal health care system would allow doctors to do the best job they can regardless of the patient's ability to pay, cut lawyers out of the health care system and get people to stay healthy in the first place. Now that all of that is just common sense.

The system is insane. Government is the problem and socializing medicine will make it worse.

Doctors still face a paperwork problem. Do they want to collect from multiple insurers or get paid by one payor? Simplfying the paperwork morass would rationalize the system and besides ending the wastage of time on paperwork, it would assign clear accountability. There is none in the health care system today for no one - not doctors, not patients and not the public at large, knows how much health care costs in this country. That is insane!

In a free market, there are usually two underlying factors determining the scope of coverage:

1. How the costs were incurred: whether the medical problem was no fault of the insured person's own choices or whether it was the result of an irresponsible and avoidable choice?

If its a pre-existing condition, then its no fault of the person who has it - it may not even be known at the time to the patient. On the other hand, drug abuse, smoking and alcoholism - well they result from personal choices that are costly to society and individuals. Yet we punish the former and elect to treat the latter as a "free rider" problem. If that is an example of how the market works, its exactly how the market shouldn't work in the first place.

2. The cost-effectiveness and extent of the adjustment: whether it's risky or experimental or if less expensive substitutes exist.

The cost of coverage is determined by the scope of covered risks, the probability of a claim, and the average expense of the treatment. The price of coverage is offset by investment returns on the cash in the coverage pool. For example, insurers may charge more to cover high-risk activities such as smoking or skydiving. A policy may also limit the extent of elective procedures such as certain forms of cosmetic surgery. Unfortunately, pricing many other distinguishing risks is not allowed because the State enlarges the pool paying into the system to the point of the absurd. It closely regulates the terms of the contracts based upon the political power of the groups at risk: those seeking to get others to subsidize the cost of their choices.

This is the problem with RomneyCare/Obamacare. It tries to marry the worst of two incompatible payment systems together without solving the drawbacks of either one. We either keep allowing private insurance companies to operate in a true market or if that's not what we want, the government should be the sole payor. At some point down the road, we have a decision to make about the future of health care in our country.

It doesn't matter if the risk is riding a motorcycle without a helmet, not taking prescribed medication, or bare-backing in a bath-house, high-risk individual choices cost the insurance pool that pays for the treatment and poses additional risks to the public at large. A State-financed or regulated system, heavily influenced by political interests, is unlikely to assess those risks objectively.

That's a valid objection but on the other side of the coin, no one knows how much the national health care bill is because no one sees it. If it was made a public one, much more attention would be paid to those costs. And when we look at how much government costs us today, why shouldn't it be part of the national conversation? Voters are generally rational actors.

Once those risks are assumed, there is the additional unnecessary legal overhead associated with malpractice settlements. Since humans will probably never know everything about their bodies, there always will be uncertainty and risk associated with the delivery of medical products and services. The assumption that anything less than a perfect cure constitutes medical malpractice is one expensive fantasy. At some point, the choice exercised by those who make healthcare choices must bring its own responsibilities.

That is addressed in the article. A system with no real accountability such as ours is open to graft, abuse and fraud. And we all end up paying for it in the form of higher insurance costs, unnecessary doctor treatments and in some cases in turning away patients seen as "lawsuit magnets."

The insurer may have reason to lose that lawsuit. First, the settlement is often less than the cost of a court battle. That means that more such cases will be brought because a new precedent, whether due to the cause of the loss, the size of the settlement, or the type of restorative measures demanded, means that all such cases must be covered the same way by all insurers. They must then raise rates and the total industry cash flow then increases. Insurers make money on that cash flow, as well as on investments in companies that treat covered losses. If that sounds like a conflict of interest, it can be.

If the government is the payor, it has sovereign immunity to lawsuits. Of course this is an example I can think of where two liberal constituencies - unions and lawyers are at loggerheads. I'd really like nothing better than to kill the liberal legal cash cow even if it means bringing the government in to make it happen.

Free Health Care

Healthcare services don't come free; somebody has to pay for them. While central planning in healthcare works no better than it did in the Soviet Union, the United States, torn between socialized medicine and corporate welfare, has some of the finest care available, but by far the most expensive. While the US bears much of the research and product development costs for the rest of the world, in no way can it be considered a cost-effective system by world standards. There is a lot that can be done to improve its efficiency without resorting to the mediocre treatment characteristic of socialized medicine.

The free market model is separate from who pays for the costs of the system. You can choose your own doctor and treatment and if you pay it out of your taxes instead of your insurance premiums, most people won't notice a difference when they go to see their doctor. They don't see a bill from a private insurer and they won't see one if the government pays their bill.

When the level of free service is equivalent to what can be purchased by private parties, there is then no reason to invest in private care. Socialized medicine makes all healthcare policy decisions political thus masking the cost of individual decisions by placing the burden for their consequences upon everybody. That's why AIDS research is starving the search to cure cancer even though the latter clearly costs society far more, which destroys the wealth that funds AIDS research. Government intervention into free-market risk management distorts the cost assessments that help industry identify costly health risks to invest in eliminating them. Treating medical problems is a human need capable of virtually infinite costs, simply because life is fatal. As medical technologies proliferate no insurance pool will be able to afford all the treatments its users could desire.

That brings us back to rationing. Someone is going to come in to control the costs. The best way wouldn't be through regulation, which we have too much of already but in paying the bill, we would get what we pay for. That is what we should reasonably expect regardless of the identity of the payor.

The best way to reduce the cost of treatment is to prevent the need, a focus upon which our physician-dominated system is lacking. These activities include personal habits that preclude problems (exercise, diet, posture, marriage, oral hygiene), mitigating measures designed to keep a problem from getting worse (special diets, spinal correction, dental care), and diagnostic tools to detect potential problems.

From a conservative point of view, its better to prevent costs up front by preventing diseases and treating them early then wait when its harder for the patient to recover and society faces burdensome health care costs.

Many nutritional supplements don’t get onto the market as substitutes for prescription drugs because food is not patentable. Decades later, expensive drugs are qualified by the FDA that have side effects the natural products don't have! The fix starts with private property rights. Many of these nutrients are only in unique local habitats. In that respect, the combination of resources and processes that support production of a particular nutrient should be patentable just like a mining claim. It certainly provides reason to understand and care for that habitat instead of ruthlessly exploiting it. You saw it here first.

This is another discussion but the FDA does not regulate nutritional supplements while on the other hand it does regulate drugs. Why there is a difference no one has ever explained.

It is within the preventative realm that the market has operated with relative freedom, but it has suffered from the distortions of treatment costs downstream. New preventative technology usually lacks physician or insurer acceptance, has high initial costs, or suffers from the perverse result of providing insurers reason to cancel coverage as is the case with diagnostic equipment. This is because minimizing total cost to the patient does not drive the profit motives to coverage providers, indeed, quite the opposite.

If we eliminate the irrationality of the market, this would lower costs, prevent perverse outcomes and make sure the end concern is with the well-being of the patient rather than being concerned with overarching complexities of the system. Our national health care debate has lost sight of the patient.

Only patients can have their own best interests at heart. That's why individual payment systems are the least expensive in delivered cost across total populations as long as each patient understands and is motivated to adopt the least cost option.

Its easier than done with the overwhelming complexity of modern health care. The cheapest option is not necessarily the best. Unfortunately, the price-driven character of our present health care payment system is not necessarily in the best interests of the patient or society.

Unfortunately, the patient has no idea what a competitive price for most medical services might be, in part because of the distortions due to the buying power of large pools. HMOs, MediCare, and hospital bills (padded to cover the cost of services to the indigent) have absolutely destroyed the patient's ability to weigh competing prices of medical services. Have you ever looked at an Explanation of Benefits form? Did the prices bear any resemblance to reality? Have you ever asked your physician what he or she might take for the service in cash? If so, were you surprised at the difference? So how can anyone objectively judge what is in their own best interest?

No one wants to see a bill. People already have enough bills to pay that they don't want to be bothered by one more. Its human nature.

You now know why the system is insane.

Indeed.

The Deep End of the Pool

Treatment of the medically indigent is totally dependent upon the insurance pool of last resort: the taxpayer. Although minimal free healthcare services cost taxpayers, confining infectious diseases and preventing lifelong problems in children saves taxpayers money in the long run. There is an obvious peril, however, in making free health care services available to anyone.

Its just single payer by another name: Medicaid. It works reasonably well and many otherwise intelligent people just act like its the end of the world if the their own taxes would pay for their health care, too.

Controlling healthcare costs thus faces an inherent conflict, regardless of whether healthcare services are private or socialized: A high price at the initial point-of-service inhibits people from seeking help early, when most medical problems are less expensive to confine or treat. Conversely, pricing medical care free of charge would make containing costs impossible. The key to resolving that paradox is in managing the triage function in a manner that serves more purposes than the system does now.

If medical care is provided without regard to ability to pay, there are other ways to make the system efficient. Give people incentive to visit doctors often, pay them not to go to emergency rooms except as a last resort and so on.

Triage is the process of evaluating patients and determining what kind of diagnostic work or treatment they need. It is done by firemen or EMTs in an emergency. It should be performed a qualified technician or nurse before any person makes it into an emergency room. Any person who doesn't qualify for emergency treatment could then be directed to an urgent care facility or asked to make an appointment.

Changing the nature of the medical system from one that treats people when they are sick to one that treats them to stay healthy, there is already a consensus about needed reform. Let's hope we adopt it.

Triage should be free. The provider must have no relationship to any downstream medical provider. They would provide pricing information on the various alternatives in the process, whether a visit with a doctor, chiropractor, nutritionist, or purchasing lab tests. Triage would thus be little different than walking into a store and deciding what to buy, if anything.

I'd agree but I already pointed out, the medical system is too complex for people to understand and people have become accustomed to not seeing another bill. This is the selling point of single payer.

The one problem with putting triage in front of a physician visit is that when most people get sick they want to see a doctor right away. The way to meet that demand is by automating the triage function. Many people have the education to make confined medical choices. An insurer could provide qualified subscribers access to online diagnostic information that would help them research their medical problem, select the appropriate specialist, make an appointment, or communicate about problem to a triage specialist. The software might also test the users' comprehension by which to qualify for the option to make more decisions for themselves. They could schedule diagnostic tests so that a physician could make a decision without a visit. Putting test and treatment protocols online thus would improve both patient education and physician accountability. >

I'm all for simplifying a daunting process. Whether it can be done within the constraints of our present medical system remains to be seen.

Such testing also assesses the effectiveness of the educational tools by which to market better services, reason to research, develop, and improve the quality of online education tools. If copyright for such information bundling and testing were confined for, let's say, five to seven years, the provider has reason to invest in improving proprietary tools, while the benefits are not retained from the public at large for an unreasonable period.

System-wide reform is a huge undertaking. It won't get done by pushing diagrams around a chart. But you underscore very well more is at stake than simply deciding on the nature of the payor. Even if that ever gets settled, its only the least of our problems. Making our health care system comprehensible and accessible to everyone in truth is the biggest challenge we face.

Increasing use of nurse practitioners to screen incoming patients would save both time and money as well as handle the indigent patient fairly. Here we come to the manner in which the scope of patient care for the indigent must be confined to a rational minimum. We have a right to be free, but we don't have a right to free care. The only way to manage the cost of medical treatment for the indigent is to define what kind of services they may have very carefully. It is a political decision.

With universal health care, its also a political decision. Nothing in life is truly free, no matter who medical practitioners service. And at point, regardless of various opinions on this thread, one day in the future people are going to be faced with what kind of medical care we as a country decide to have and are willing to pay to get.

Where the healthcare industry is truly responsible to the public is in informing our representatives of the relative cost of various healthcare options by which they can then define the scope of coverage in budgetary legislation. Providers should effectively give us a budget for what they can accomplish for a given amount of money, what would be effectively indigent healthcare for bid. Most healthcare purchases today are not made by the user, but by an interest without accountability for acting as the user's agent: their employer. To combine the benefits of pooling with visible pricing means more than making the purchase price of healthcare options visible, it is to return to the user control of the buying decision. We need to expand the concept of the Medical Savings Account to include pretax purchase of healthcare on the part of the employee and end employer purchase of healthcare.

Ideally, a free market health care system would not be tied to employment. Your solution is the flaw in the ointment. Unless health care is portable and people can take it wherever they want without being tied down to their job, the politics will ensure we'll get single payer health care. To avoid that outcome, that we need to give people freedom from worry that they won't be able to take their benefits with them when they change jobs.

One way to resolve that customer alienation from reality, and provide private providers a way to contain costs, would be to market coverage from a menu of narrowly defined policies. Consumers would combine these policies into a package to suit their individual preferences. By defining coverage pools according to the choices people make, those behaviors that unnecessarily cost the total system would be borne by those who choose to incur those costs.

That's already a mandate. We're already talking about regulating of insurers' practices. And if they decide its not in their interest? Then we're right back where we started before.

For example, people who don't want extreme measures taken to save their lives or don't need coverage to treat STDs, obesity, infertility treatments, or caring for children, wouldn't have to pay for them. Those who don’t want elective cosmetic surgery wouldn't buy that policy. If getting regular exercise assured a lower cost of coverage it would motivate the sedentary to start working to qualify for that pool. Forcing people to confront the cost of their choices is an important way to prevent expensive problems. That process reduces the total cost of the entire system. Pricing each distinct need focuses research dollars to fix the problems that have the most potential, whether glamorous university-research or a simple educational tool.

There are thousands of prices. Which is the most important? Which aren't? How do consumers and patients deal with the information overload? It would be wonderful if we knew what choices people made. The market is not always good at anticipating it any more than central planners do. That is something that deserves further consideration.

It may be true that America's research is carrying much of the rest of the world stuck with socialized medical care, but it is product development that pays for it. No political system is as efficient at optimizing competing demands on capital as is the marketplace.

I'm in favor of the market but we realize the market can't handle everything. And American companies don't want to carry those costs any more. Conservatives and politicians as the article points out, should be prepared for that eventuality.

There will still need to be restrictions on customized customer pools for the sale of health insurance to preclude exclusion of people who had no choice in their ailments, such as those who suffer congenital diseases. That such groups exist does not discount the value of pricing services by behavior because it motivates healthy decisions that increase the total wealth that ultimately must pay for those who can't.

Dream on. There's a reason all politicians want to get rid of "pre-existing conditions." If the insurance companies resist, they're market dinosaurs. Any way you look at it - the world and American health care are going to change in the years to come, whether we like it or not.

41 posted on 06/16/2012 10:30:53 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Health care woes caused by government interference.

Proposes even more government inference to fix it.

Wow, great logic. /s


42 posted on 06/16/2012 10:46:39 PM PDT by caldera599
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It is not necessary to have a government single payer insurance system to alleviate the problem of employer-dependent health insurance.

A much simpler solution is to remove all barriers to insurance companies operating across state lines and bar employers from providing health insurance as a benefit to their employees. Yes, I said BAN employers from providing health benefits. Employers should be happy to remove themselves from this mess and give their employees raises equal to what the health insurance was costing them.

This would result in anyone who actually values health insurance competing in a free market to find the best price from a wider range of providers, and retaining their health insurance regardless of employer.

Another necessary step is to remove healthcare costs incurred from those debts subject to relief in personal bankruptcy. When people know that the consequences of being uninsured will follow them to their grave, including automatic garnishment of wages, they will not drift through life uninsured.

Next, we need to do as most other countries do with tort laws — “loser pays” — to discourage frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. How much of a doctor’s fees is going right out the window in malpractice insurance and litigation costs ? In Canada, not only do they have “loser pays”, but doctors FIGHT every lawsuit to drastically reduce frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers must be VERY confident of proving their client’s actual damages to risk losing and pay the doctor’s legal fees.

Finally, we need the government to stop cutting themselves in for half of the wages earned by doctors. Every time I hear some Dim talk about raising taxes on the “2%”, I’m reminded that that group includes most doctors. The class warfare policy of punishing successful people via progressive taxes leads directly to higher healthcare costs. Imagine if doctors were paying a 10% flat tax rather than 39% income tax plus 15% FICA.


43 posted on 06/16/2012 11:22:12 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The best technology increases costs....... And as health care technology improves, so do the available choices health care consumers face.

You know so little

Question if increase in technology always leads to higher prices. Why then computers, cell phones, cosmetic surgery and dentistry get cheaper every year?

Meanwhile, "real health" and college which the government has it's grubby hands all over gets more & more expensive.

44 posted on 06/16/2012 11:37:19 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
However, HK has a dirty little secret. It has a very good national health care system. HK citizens have some of the highest life expectancies in the world but their government health care system only costs about three percent of their GDP to operate (a sharp contrast to the 20 percent of GDP that USA health care costs are expected to be in the next decade).

Hong Kong doesn't have a government run single payer system.

Sure the government runs some hospitals, but they charge you or your insurance company.

The author(you?) should research more into Hong Kong.

http://guides.wsj.com/hong-kong/guide-to-hong-kong/health-care/

45 posted on 06/16/2012 11:57:26 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“One thing he misses, without a government mandate employers don’t have the burden he describes.”

The question is whether it really is a burden or not. I think the costs and regulations have finally tipped it toward “burden”, but it was not always so. For decades, this employer-provided benefit was a way to retain employees, and not in a good way. It took advantage of the employee’s fear of having a health problem while they were in the 6-month limbo of a waiting period before their new employer’s insurance would include them, or if they already had an existing condition whether they would be excluded by a new employer’s group plan. This improved employers’ bargaining position as a fearful employee is less likely to demand raises or threaten to leave for a better job.

The employee need never have been fearful if they had simply demanded more cash pay and maintained their own health insurance. The expanding cost and regulation involved, even before Obamacare, should by now make employers relieved to just give the employee a raise and get out of the health insurance business. Killing any sort of mandate on employers and encouraging employers to drop their group plans in lieu of higher wages should be elements of a conservative approach to lowering healthcare costs.


46 posted on 06/17/2012 12:28:39 AM PDT by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
If ObamaCare is struck down or repealed there is a series of reforms that can be put in place before any fundamental changes are contemplated. These would include: privatization of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system; opening a nationwide market for health care insurers and clients; medical malpractice tort reform; allowing nurse practitioners and other highly-trained paramedics to assume many roles traditionally limited to physicians.
47 posted on 06/17/2012 1:20:23 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The only problem is Obamacare has no real healthcare in it and has some other pretty bad stuff in it. It should be scrapped period.


48 posted on 06/17/2012 1:30:59 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

The article is complete bullshit. ‘Single payer’ is inherently inefficient becuase it destroys competition. If there’s only one buyer, and one price for everything, then costs are going to spiral inevitably upwards.

Sure, on the outset, lowering the cost of stuff through price control seems efficient, but either the costs rises to meet what things actually cost, or you have rationing, which does the same thing. How ‘efficient’ is it if you are paying more for less.


49 posted on 06/17/2012 3:01:46 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Conservatives are supposed to be the defenders of business. Yet our current health care system works as an albatross around the neck of American business.

Not as cogent as you think it is. The guy tap-dances around what caused the problem in the first place: GOVERMENT INTRUSION. Health care insurance started skyrocketing after the government got involved. The constant addition of coverage that MUST be included, disallowing inter-State "commerce" with insurance companies, etc.

Don't get sucked into socialist BS.

50 posted on 06/17/2012 3:20:00 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson