all the health care money can buy

[Square]

But, but, but... there'd be DEATH PANELS if gubment was involved.

 

[TimC]

We need to repeal the right to basic treatment at emergency rooms if unable to pay. It is in direct conflict and should be abolished. This is just another case of unintended consequences when that law was passed.

[WaterMan]

So the author supports America balancing itself towards being a 3rd world country instead of being progressive.

 

Ok, Stone Age/Iraqi healthcare option for our advanced society it is then.

[detlef]

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.

+1,000

 

Talk about pay as you go. Less private insurance, less marketing costs which means cheaper insurance for everyone. I mean, these guys are not buying ads on syndicated re-runs of Seinfeld, they're buying NFL Sunday. What does that mean? Well, it might mean cable bills go up to recoup the lost ad revenue. OK, well, suck it up. Do you want affordable access to medicine or TV? Right now, you can't choose. Blue Cross is already paying for the ad and that raises the cost of your premium. You can't "opt out" of the TV ad portion by agreeing not to watch the shows. You're stuck with it. So, some poor a-hole is stuck paying more to insure his kid so you can watch TV cheaper than you would otherwise.

[Azazello1313]

Less private insurance, less marketing costs which means cheaper insurance for everyone.

 

f'n seriously? so, ok....why is this argument different with health care than with anything else? take out the profit motive and all those extra costs, and voila! the model of streamlined economic efficiency! it seems like they tried that in some places though, last century. east germany, north korea, etc.

[Azazello1313]

I mean, these guys are not buying ads on syndicated re-runs of Seinfeld, they're buying NFL Sunday. What does that mean?

 

good thing the government never does that

[Caveman_Nick]

[detlef]

f'n seriously? so, ok....why is this argument different with health care than with anything else? take out the profit motive and all those extra costs, and voila! the model of streamlined economic efficiency! it seems like they tried that in some places though, last century. east germany, north korea, etc.

Um, so we're still stuck on taking things to the extreme, like the guy in the article? So, since dolling out health insurance may be something where the free market doesn't yield the best value for the consumer, then that must mean that there is no industry where that's the case? Anyone who doesn't think private health insurance is the way to go must be against all private industry?

 

The free market is great at certain things. If you like fancy cars and don't mind spending the extra cash to get one? That's cool. If there's enough guys like you, then BMW has a market and will deliver you a car. If you don't care, then you buy a Corolla. That's great. The costs associated with competition are outweighed by the benefits to the consumer in the form of choice and eager sellers fighting for your favor.

 

But insurance is already a collective pot where you're bound by the same sort of mob-rules crap that would make Gov't controlled industry less groovy than private industry. Because some other a-hole can't stop eating and gets adult on-set diabetes, your premium goes up, whether it's because Obama or Blue Cross is making the call. You're screwed either way.

 

So it's not like you reap the rewards of competition. Because it's not competition, it's a cartel. Shop around for insurance much? It's not like they're any different. It's the same crap, just worded differently. Ever tried to get an issue taken care of? It's not like there's a battle among the private carriers to out-love you. The only way the Gov't could be worse would be send electric shocks through the phone and tell you to go cuff yourself. So, you get none of the advantages and yet pay for the costs associated with these guys trying to lure you into their plan as opposed to another company's.

Edited May 13, 2011 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

Um, so we're still stuck on taking things to the extreme, like the guy in the article? So, since dolling out health insurance may be something where the free market doesn't yield the best value for the consumer, then that must mean that there is no industry where that's the case? Anyone who doesn't think private health insurance is the way to go must be against all private industry?

 

The free market is great at certain things. If you like fancy cars and don't mind spending the extra cash to get one? That's cool. If there's enough guys like you, then BMW has a market and will deliver you a car. If you don't care, then you buy a Corolla. That's great. The costs associated with competition are outweighed by the benefits to the consumer in the form of choice and eager sellers fighting for your favor.

 

But insurance is already a collective pot where you're bound by the same sort of mob-rules crap that would make Gov't controlled industry less groovy than private industry. Because some other a-hole can't stop eating and gets adult on-set diabetes, your premium goes up, whether it's because Obama or Blue Cross is making the call. You're screwed either way. It's not like you reap the rewards of competition. It's not competition, it's a cartel. Shop around for insurance much? It's not like they're any different. It's the same crap, just worded differently. So, you get none of the advantages and yet pay for the costs associated with these guys trying to lure you into their plan as opposed to another company's.

 

the current health insurance is anything but a free market. it is already 50% socialized (when you count VA, medicare, medicaid, etc.) and probably the most tightly regulated industry out there. read this for a cogent explanation by one of the greatest economists who ever lived (wiegie I think would agree). we talk about "rationing" like it's some awful bogeyman, but rationing is in some ways just another name for the process of allocating limited resources among competing potential alternatives. it's not really a stretch at all to say that the primary problem with our current system is that there is not enough rationing.

 

the question is, how should we fix it? and again, there are two directions we can go -- government rationing or individual rationing. central planning or the invisible hand. perhaps even some smart mixture of both. but what we have now, it should be clearly noted, is a hugh morass of neither, at least when it comes to cost controls.

[detlef]

the current health insurance is anything but a free market. it is already 50% socialized (when you count VA, medicare, medicaid, etc.) and probably the most tightly regulated industry out there. read this for a cogent explanation by one of the greatest economists who ever lived (wiegie I think would agree). we talk about "rationing" like it's some awful bogeyman, but rationing is in some ways just another name for the process of allocating limited resources among competing potential alternatives. it's not really a stretch at all to say that the primary problem with our current system is that there is not enough rationing.

 

the question is, how should we fix it? and again, there are two directions we can go -- government rationing or individual rationing. central planning or the invisible hand. perhaps even some smart mixture of both. but what we have now, it should be clearly noted, is a hugh morass of neither, at least when it comes to cost controls.

My guess is that we're not really all that far apart in our assessment of the situation.

 

The point I was making was that, considering the lack of real choice we get in buying insurance. The lack of advantage any competition between providers really gives us, I'm annoyed by the reality of any costs, ultimately incurred by the consumer, associated with options who seem indistinguishable in any meaningful way, fighting for our business. They sponsor golf events for exposure. It's the same reason why I sponsor things, to get my name out there. But there's a huge difference between my industry and that one.

 

See, I'm not battling for dollars with my competitors but also understanding that, along with them, I'm one of very few people who provide something that they can't live without. Food, sure. But you don't need to eat out and it's not like there's 4 of us, there's tons. So, while my customers do bear the brunt of my marketing showing up in the cost of their meal, they also have the advantage of knowing that, if I get carried away, they can just go eat somewhere where the guy isn't trying to screw them over. So, they get the good part of competition along with the bad part. Competition in my industry leads to value for the consumer.

 

With insurance, we just get the bad part.