all the health care money can buy

[Azazello1313]

good article

[Pope Flick]

No, it's not.

[Azazello1313]

No, it's not.

 

yeah huh

[untateve]

I understand the gist of this article. However, this example:

 

Americans purchase nonprescription drugs about 12 billion times a year, according to a calculation by Simon Rottenberg some time ago, and almost all of these are acts of self-medication. Yet if everyone sought professional advice before making such purchases (as they probably would if there were no time or money price), we would need 25 times the number of primary care physicians we currently have.

 

seems silly.

 

I have a headache and I'm out of Tylenol. So rather than go to the drugstore and buy some Tylenol, I'm going to seek professional advice because it's free and easy?

[MikesVikes]

I need some Advil before my head explodes from that story.

[untateve]

I need some Advil before my head explodes from that story.

 

You should go to your local emergency room. You can get them for free there.

[bushwacked]

yeah huh

 

[MikesVikes]

You should go to your local emergency room. You can get them for free there.

 

The local emergency room is very full today. Seems like Minnesota wants to take health care away from the poor. They're all at the emergency room now.

Edited May 11, 2011 by MikesVikes

[Clubfoothead]

Why on earth would someone take the time to write something so stupid?

 

Yeah, if everyone had every possible test that could be conducted conducted, it would be expensive. So is the follow-up article going to explain to me how a billion one dollar bills makes me rich?

[Azazello1313]

Why on earth would someone take the time to write something so stupid?

 

probably because nobody ever wants to confront the reality it describes. people talk about health care as a "right". well, how much? who decides and on what basis?

[Clubfoothead]

probably because nobody ever wants to confront the reality it describes. people talk about health care as a "right". well, how much? who decides and on what basis?

 

Somewhere short of all 10,000 blood tests when you just want to know if your cholesterol is normal.

 

The only thing the atricle wants me to confront is the author's stupidity. I'd rather change the litter boxes.

[Azazello1313]

probably because nobody ever wants to confront the reality it describes. people talk about health care as a "right". well, how much? who decides and on what basis?

Somewhere short of all 10,000 blood tests when you just want to know if your cholesterol is normal.

 

which, of course, is another complete f'ing dodge of the question.

[Pope Flick]

That entire article is a dodge of reality.

[Ursa Majoris]

I wonder if there is a balance to be struck between total individualism and single payer? Total individualism is fine if you have disposable income but an increasing number do not. We could have a single payer system that kicked in after some variable deductible based on AGI from the previous tax year. The cost of the single payer element would be added to taxes, which already have their own bureaucracy, which would allow elimination of the bureaucrat overhead that private insurance brings .

 

The problem with single payer is that it funds pretty much everything, with a few exceptions, and having a graduated deductible would likely serve to keep costs down, same as car and house insurance deductibles keep those costs down.

[detlef]

While I think the question of "how much" is a fair one, needlessly taking the argument to the extremes that author does in that article is not an intelligent way to kick-start the conversation.

 

There's no shortage of programs that could be "scrutinized" in the same manner by taking them to needless extremes.

 

And, as others have pointed out, this guy makes some silly assumptions.

 

So, sure, someone needs to bring up the level at which enough is enough. I don't want to pay for someone to get countless of needless tests. Obviously, there's a level and that level needs to be examined. Mind you, right now, there are certainly people who are simply going without very basic medical needs, so I don't think we should be too worried about people flooding the emergency room because they have a headache, yet.

 

But again, an article as stupid as that one is not the first step in rational discussion about where do we draw the line. Neither is alternating between talking about "death panels" and "what will happen when people go to the doctor because they have a hang-nail?" Which appears to be the tactic. Unless people are actually and truly satisfied with the state of health care in the US. Not just the health care that they, specifically can afford because they happen to be rich, but with the big picture.

[Azazello1313]

That entire article is a dodge of reality.

 

how so, exactly? the point is that there is no clear line as to how much health care people ought to have. as a society, there is no way we can provide "the best health care" for everyone, to do so would consume more than our entire GDP. that means screenings that could catch cancer going undone. it means certain procedures that could improve or extend quality of life being foregone. it means certain symptoms going untreated. and therefore, we need to be honest about how we are confronting those decisions.

 

so how is that argument a dodge of reality?

[Azazello1313]

I wonder if there is a balance to be struck between total individualism and single payer? Total individualism is fine if you have disposable income but an increasing number do not. We could have a single payer system that kicked in after some variable deductible based on AGI from the previous tax year. The cost of the single payer element would be added to taxes, which already have their own bureaucracy, which would allow elimination of the bureaucrat overhead that private insurance brings .

 

The problem with single payer is that it funds pretty much everything, with a few exceptions, and having a graduated deductible would likely serve to keep costs down, same as car and house insurance deductibles keep those costs down.

 

as I've said many times before, I think the answer is govt provided catastrophic coverage for all. minimal coverage, just enough to even out the "high risk" people with everyone else. then some sort of tax credit for the amount of a basic, high deductible plan (offset by complete elimination of the tax exclusion for employer provided health benefits).

 

that way government steps in where virtually only government can (insuring the uninsurable), and then individuals are in control of their own health care expenditures to a far greater degree than they are now.

[detlef]

as I've said many times before, I think the answer is govt provided catastrophic coverage for all. minimal coverage, just enough to even out the "high risk" people with everyone else. then some sort of tax credit for the amount of a basic, high deductible plan (offset by complete elimination of the tax exclusion for employer provided health benefits).

 

that way government steps in where virtually only government can (insuring the uninsurable), and then individuals are in control of their own health care expenditures to a far greater degree than they are now.

I'm cool with that. Mind you, my wife and I can afford a high deductible plan. Ironic, really. That we have enough money to afford to buy the cheapest insurance out there. But that's how we play it. And if something pretty bad but short of catastrophic comes up, we have to bite the bullet. On the other hand, we're not stuck paying $500+ a month just for the two of us because we don't have the $10K sitting around to cover the cost of our deductible.

 

Thus far, every year, we've paid out far less in medical bills that would have been covered by a more comprehensive plan than we've saved by going cheap. And, I think by now, we've save almost enough to pay for one really bad event that took us all the way to our deductible.

 

But, of course, many can't afford to risk a $10K doctor's bill.

Edited May 12, 2011 by detlef

[Pope Flick]

how so, exactly? the point is that there is no clear line as to how much health care people ought to have. as a society, there is no way we can provide "the best health care" for everyone, to do so would consume more than our entire GDP. that means screenings that could catch cancer going undone. it means certain procedures that could improve or extend quality of life being foregone. it means certain symptoms going untreated. and therefore, we need to be honest about how we are confronting those decisions.

so how is that argument a dodge of reality?

 

 

I've never seen the health bill presented as 'the best health care for everybody that will have everyone take prescreenings that will bankrupt everyone" which, in fact, is the supposition of this article and the part you left out in the first part I bolded. It's been presented as getting uninsured people insured and onto the rolls in order to expand the pool to theoretically drive down costs - which I certainly understand is debatable, but this straw man bullchit you're posting (big surprise!) isn't. Thanks for asking.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Pope Flick

[Ursa Majoris]

as I've said many times before, I think the answer is govt provided catastrophic coverage for all. minimal coverage, just enough to even out the "high risk" people with everyone else. then some sort of tax credit for the amount of a basic, high deductible plan (offset by complete elimination of the tax exclusion for employer provided health benefits).

 

that way government steps in where virtually only government can (insuring the uninsurable), and then individuals are in control of their own health care expenditures to a far greater degree than they are now.

And many times I've pretty much agreed, with some caveats, to wit:

 

Entirely divorce employment from health care (I think all employers would agree with that regardless of their size)

Pay the premium in tax (open to discussion based on most efficient way to get the government care funded)

Eliminate all private insurance except [1] add-ons that people could buy to cover the deductible if they want and [2] extra insurance to use private systems. Absolutely no tax deductions should be put in place if people want to buy these things.

[Square]

people talk about health care as a "right". well, how much? who decides and on what basis?

So defense is a "right" and the politicians get to spend my money using attack drones in the mountains of Afghanistan, but we should really take a look at wasting money on actually caring for the medical needs of our citizens because it could cost too much money? Sounds like a swell way to prioritize the needs of a nation.

 

Some of this gets to be laughable sophistry as almost every industrialized nation except us has some form of a universal healthcare. Turns out they spend less and live longer than Americans. The current system is a purposely confusing sham. Veterans use VA hospitals and many of the elderly use a government run program. It's ridiculous that many of the people who would need medical attention the most get government provided programs and systems but people act like if we let all the 25 - 50 year olds get a public option, the whole system will implode.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Square

[untateve]

So defense is a "right" and the politicians get to spend my money using attack drones in the mountains of Afghanistan, but we should really take a look at wasting money on actually caring for the medical needs of our citizens because it could cost too much money? Sounds like a swell way to prioritize the needs of a nation.

 

Some of this gets to be laughable sophistry as almost every industrialized nation except us has some form of a universal healthcare. Turns out they spend less and live longer than Americans. The current system is a purposely confusing sham. Veterans use VA hospitals and many of the elderly use a government run program. It's ridiculous that many of the people who would need medical attention the most get government provided programs and systems but people act like if we let all the 25 - 50 year olds get a public option, the whole system will implode.

 

Are you calling our Veteran's socialists? I'm going to go burn my flag in protest of this post.

[Clubfoothead]

which, of course, is another complete f'ing dodge of the question.

 

 

Lighten up. My reply was no less legitimate a reply to the question than your "good article".

 

how so, exactly? the point is that there is no clear line as to how much health care people ought to have. as a society, there is no way we can provide "the best health care" for everyone, to do so would consume more than our entire GDP. that means screenings that could catch cancer going undone. it means certain procedures that could improve or extend quality of life being foregone. it means certain symptoms going untreated. and therefore, we need to be honest about how we are confronting those decisions.

 

so how is that argument a dodge of reality?

 

Nobody has ever advocated unlimited everything for everybody. I simply disagree with the argument that only under a government option is there a thrid party who decides these things. Your health insurer makes the same decisions.

 

Private health insurers have no problem determining what certain procedures are to be forgone; what symptoms go untreated; and, which screenings are too expensive. And those decisions are based on how much richer can they get. That's what businsses do. The reality is those decisions are difficult enough and I don't see how making sure to add the costs of tv and radio commercials, the CEO's annual bonus, sponsoring golf tournaments, market share and dividends of insurance companies to these inherently expensive situations equates to the best way to make those decisions.

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't see how making sure to add the costs of tv and radio commercials, the CEO's annual bonus, sponsoring golf tournaments, market share and dividends of insurance companies to these inherently expensive situations equates to the best way to make those decisions.

Exactly.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Nobody has ever advocated unlimited everything for everybody. I simply disagree with the argument that only under a government option is there a thrid party who decides these things. Your health insurer makes the same decisions.

 

Private health insurers have no problem determining what certain procedures are to be forgone; what symptoms go untreated; and, which screenings are too expensive. And those decisions are based on how much richer can they get. That's what businsses do. The reality is those decisions are difficult enough and I don't see how making sure to add the costs of tv and radio commercials, the CEO's annual bonus, sponsoring golf tournaments, market share and dividends of insurance companies to these inherently expensive situations equates to the best way to make those decisions.

nicely put. and insurers make many more decisions about your health and health care than most people realize.