[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by KarafromPhilly

I'm wondering--with all this reiteration of the idea of a free market, how EXACTLY does anyone stand to make a profit off of people who are both very ill and completely broke? I have the feeling that if anyone could come up with a specific answer to this question that somebody would already be out there doing it, KWIM?

How does anybody make a profit selling phones to people that are completely broke and phoneless? But, they do. More people in poverty have cell phones than not.

How does anybody make a profit selling cars to people that are completely broke, but carless? But, they do. More families in poverty have cars than not.

How does anybody make a profit selling television sets to people that are completely broke and tv-less? But, they do. The average poor household has a television set.

See the thing about the free market is that a competitive market will expand to capture the absolute maximum audience. Socialists think of the free market as a bunch of rich people smoking cigars and slapping themselves on the backs for how they 'got' the little guy.

Except.

In a truly free market (not the gov't protected market of health insurance), the dirty little secret is the rich cannot become rich without having a market to sell their products.

The rich can't become rich while the poor become poor if you need a growing middle class to buy your products. It's a symbiotic relationship. YOU need somebody rich to have the assets and desire (to be rich) to craft a product to sell to you. THEY need you to have enough money to BUY their products.

The market will reach out for the maximum market to compete in. It's the way it's always worked. It is the best combination of quality and price, for the absolute most people.

The gov't simply cannot provide a better price, higher quality, OR, more universal coverage. The gov't just isn't that good a competitor, much less a monopoly.

Does it matter if EVERYBODY is covered if 47 million people won't get the care they need because of wait lists? More people will stay sick and more people will DIE waiting for care under a rationed system than can access the system today.

Gov't restricted health care just isn't very compassionate.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by KarafromPhilly

I'm wondering--with all this reiteration of the idea of a free market, how EXACTLY does anyone stand to make a profit off of people who are both very ill and completely broke? I have the feeling that if anyone could come up with a specific answer to this question that somebody would already be out there doing it, KWIM?

The direct answer to your question is catastrophic insurance that is real 'insurance' instead of pre-paid health care under the guise of insurance (what we have now). Get the gov't rules out of the way, and such policies would be cheap enough to offer to even entry-level workers. Let the government subsidize anybody it feels can't afford such policies.

Everything else, let the consumer negotiate. I know, you CAN'T negotiate where they take you after a car accident. THAT is what catastrophic insurance covers. Routine doctor visits, medications, etc - let the consumer negotiate. The market will only pay what it will bear. I assure you, a CT scan would not be several hundred dollars if people had to pay for them, out of pocket. Your doctor wouldn't give you the latest $200 dollar anti-biotic if the $10 generic would suffice and YOU were paying for it. (If YOU were paying for it, the latest antibiotic wouldn't be $200, in the first place.)

Health care savings accounts would shield 5 grand a year, tax-free and cumulative, of your income for out-of-pocket expenses. For MOST people, when they are young and healthy, that amount will grow and grow so that, when they NEED it, it will be a considerable amount of money. For the chronically ill - add a high cap that converts their care to the catastrophic plan after a certain amount (say 20k/yr worth of care) and then - and only then - let the gov't pick up the tab (SSI) for the difference between the 5k HSA and the 20k/cap (15k).

Now, you have the gov't picking up parts of the tab to make the system more or less, universal. The gov't would pay for three things: catastrophic insurance for those it deems needs help, HSA assistance to those that can't afford to put their own 5 grand back a year (similar to the EITC - a credit to your account), and SSI gap for chronic coverage between 5k and the 20k catastrophic kick in for coverage of chronic illness. These three things, in an otherwise first party payer market, would be FAR cheaper than the tab the government currently picks up.

You have the average person negotiating his own care. Prices will plummet, making the system more and more affordable. The market will and can only charge what the market will bear. Competition will weed out inefficiency. THAT would be the best combination of the free market, and gov't, working together to bring about universality. It would do so without stealing health care choice from the masses. It would make care much cheaper.

The results: cheaper care, better care (because the combination of price and quality are the chief selling points of any product), universal care, free market care.

The market works, and works best. Even for 'broke' people.

I have just outlined for you 'universal coverage' that doesn't take away choice, from anybody. It doesn't force you to depend upon some bureaucrat for your care (whether that 'crat is from the gov't or some big gov't backed insurance company). To the contrary, getting your employer's health care provider (YOU aren't their customer), and the gov't out of your way will give the average consumer MORE choice in his/her care, for less cost.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Nurse4years]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Does it matter if EVERYBODY is covered if 47 million people won't get the care they need because of wait lists? More people will stay sick and more people will DIE waiting for care under a rationed system than can access the system today.
~faith,
Timothy.

Where does this thought come from? Now you are saying that not only will people stay sicker-more will die when receiving greater access to health care?
Please, you gotta explain this one to me.

[amj12]

So after reading a few threads I decided to brush up on universal healthcare as I began to think what I learned way back in High School and college sociology was incorrect; Lucky for me I learned it's not.


"Most countries have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. Other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected."

"The primary source of funding for universal healthcare is general taxation revenue."

[manofcare]

Great example from the north, a land where great liberal thinking has created the perfect utopia for the sick. In Canada they have universal health care, but the lines are extremely long. The government did what it does best, passed a law to force all patients to be seen within four hours of admission. Now the patients are stacked in ambulances out side of the hospital and not admitted because the load is too high to see them within the mandated time frame. See, problem solved. Not admitted, and clock does not start until admitted. Ohh, but what about the ambulance being out of service while granny has an MI? Well, they could always pass a law that granny can only code on Thursdays. Governments are always so good at this kind of stuff, huh?

[manofcare]

Originally Posted by Mschrisco

Where does this thought come from? Now you are saying that not only will people stay sicker-more will die when receiving greater access to health care?
Please, you gotta explain this one to me.

Anyone one can walk into the ER, but it really does no good if you are not seen. Access describes the service you will receive socialized medicine. You will have access if you can wait for it. You will have the standard of care dictated by the government and you will have the quality of care dictated by the people that brought you the IRS.

[jjjoy]

Tim, again, I appreciate your input. The ideas you mention sound pretty good. I'm still not gung ho about MSAs, but I am for the idea of health insurance being for catastrophic events only. And then perhaps more of a UHC type program for some kinds of chronic care (like adult day health care for example which allow family caregivers to work full-time) - and public health measures such as childhood immunizations.

I personally tend to get rather turned off, though, when you start to preach the wonders of the free market and of choice and the horrors of socialism and big government. It feels like being prosthelytized to (did I spell that right?). If anyone is going to have a conversion experience, it generally won't be from a patronizing speech that overgeneralizes (government involvement is ALWAYS bad) and uses scare tactics (you might die waiting for your health care!).

I admit that some proponents of liberal/leftist ideology use the same tactics (for profit business is ALWAYS bad; you might die waiting for your insurance approval!) and that turns me off as well.

Thanks to all for the mostly civil discussion on these important matters!!!!

[Nurse4years]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Does it matter if EVERYBODY is covered if 47 million people won't get the care they need because of wait lists? More people will stay sick and more people will DIE waiting for care under a rationed system than can access the system today.

~faith,

Timothy.

Originally Posted by manofcare

Anyone one can walk into the ER, but it really does no good if you are not seen. Access describes the service you will receive socialized medicine. You will have access if you can wait for it. You will have the standard of care dictated by the government and you will have the quality of care dictated by the people that brought you the IRS.

IRS was formed in 1953- so the same people are going to run UHC?
WE are the government. WE the people. For a fact, political systems can change and be changed. Why not bring in political issues from other years- 1924, 1888, 1789, etc.? Is this the same government, or are we going to stop this example at the year 1053?
It will happen, now, later, eventually we will have UHC.
As a society, we have to grow.
Of course no nation is perfect, nor do they have perfect systems. It is an impossibility. It took years for democracy to advance as it has, and we are still growing.
Capitalism has created "health care plans" that are not helping anyone. Capitalism has found a way to make a $ off poor, working uninsured.
So far, on this thread, I haven't seen any answers except increased taxation.
Lots of free market rhetoric, but no specifics.

[Woodenpug]

It does seem that an idealized theoretical system call a "free market" is compared to real world examples of "socialized health care." Those real world examples stand up fairly well to the idealized theory of a "free market." That is what the facts show and links to those facts are listed in several posts. UHC would put the government control, which exists, has always existed, and will always exist, into a centralized, highly transparent system. Currently, it is all but impossible to see the incredible amount of control the government has over health care. The real world "free market" simply gives you the illusion of government non-involvement. If you truly favor less government control over health care, you would favor UHC or another system where the laws affecting health care would be more transparent.

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by amj12

So after reading a few threads I decided to brush up on universal healthcare as I began to think what I learned way back in High School and college sociology was incorrect; Lucky for me I learned it's not.


"Most countries have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. Other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected."

"The primary source of funding for universal healthcare is general taxation revenue."

How are schools paid for, or fire departments, or police, or libraries, we don't have a right to these services either, do we?