EPTI'm not following your logic. Regulation is obviously not to blame here, as has already been stated. If this was the case, insurers would not be getting away with denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. As has been stated, it is a case of crony capitalism. The greatest way to seperate consumers and suppliers from the "price mechanism" or free market, is to get rid of all of the middle men and reform the industry into a single payer system. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I am getting some contradictions from what you are suggesting.
The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
I'm not following your logic. Regulation is obviously not to blame here, as has already been stated. If this was the case, insurers would not be getting away with denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. As has been stated, it is a case of crony capitalism. The greatest way to seperate consumers and suppliers from the "price mechanism" or free market, is to get rid of all of the middle men and reform the industry into a single payer system. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I am getting some contradictions from what you are suggesting. | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 31 2012 23:16 Vulture174 wrote: The government being able to run your life and force you to buy things is never a step in the right direction do you realize that you are willfully giving up the right to run your own life and make your own choices be they good or bad when you give the government this type of power? How can people support this type of thing? They know no better. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 01 2012 10:42 liberal wrote: Yes, this is one of the factors I've been mentioning regarding higher costs. The normal system of supply and demand is breaking down because we have third and fourth parties acting as intermediaries in every transaction. The person consuming the service is not faced with the direct cost, except perhaps a small deductible, and so they have no incentive at all to seek cheaper doctors, to forego unnecessary visits or care, and most importantly, to hold the suppliers accountable for fraudulent charges or prices... It is far more expensive for a company to try and police all of these millions of transactions instead of having the individual consumer police their own behavior based upon prices. This is the brilliance of the concept of the "invisible hand" that probably serves as the butt of a joke for most people here. Millions of people being influenced by personal incentives as dictated by price will always be more effective than paying a third party to try and manage it for them. Could you imagine how expensive it would be for you to pay an adviser to tell you what to buy at the supermarket instead of just buying it yourself? The situation is exacerbated by the fact that most people are now getting their third party insurance through a fourth party, their employer, due of course to government regulation in the matter. The more middle men you insert in the equation and the more you separate the actual consumers and suppliers from the price mechanism, the more waste, inefficiency, and direct fraud and abuse will arise. I'm just so skeptical that general public would somehow, given the opportunity to select their own health care providers and insurers in a free market, be able to "force" them lowering the cost of health care in any meaningful way. Just look at what happened to amount of bad mortgages people bought that lead to the crisis in your country. This is absolutely cynical, but the average person is simply not objective enough or well-informed to challenge insurers or providers. Compound that with the fact that health care providers and insurers have your health to use as leverage. The individual mandate was a band aid solution that would give more people access to overpriced healthcare. It's a compromise, that's for sure. But I have no idea how you would approach the problem the other way, and force healthcare providers to charge less. I know you attribute that partially to wasteful bureaucracy, but the cynicism in me finds it hard to imagine that the health care industry wouldn't exploit less regulation for more profit. Edit: I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Those who don't can be voted out of office. Can you do that to a profiteering insurance industry? More to the point, a for-profit, ANTI TRUST EXEMPT corporation??? | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 01 2012 10:56 screamingpalm wrote: @ liberal- I'm not following your logic. Regulation is obviously not to blame here, as has already been stated. If this was the case, insurers would not be getting away with denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. As has been stated, it is a case of crony capitalism. The greatest way to seperate consumers and suppliers from the "price mechanism" or free market, is to get rid of all of the middle men and reform the industry into a single payer system. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I am getting some contradictions from what you are suggesting. Your claim that regulation isn't to blame because insurers "get away" with denying coverage to those with pre existing conditions doesn't make sense... Insurance is designed to insure people who are healthy. You cannot insure someone who is already sick, anymore than you can insure a home that is already on fire. Forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions is effectively outlawing the insurance business. I agree with you that part of the problem is "crony capitalism," but it doesn't make sense that you then support greater regulation. Crony capitalism means businesses colluding with government through harmful regulation. So if you agree there is crony capitalism, then you agree with me that there must be much harmful regulation. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
If people knew how much less other countries were paying for the exact same quality of healthcare, they would strongly consider supporting socialized medicine. A single person doesn't have much bargaining power with a healthcare provider. A government that represents 500 million people has much more leverage. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:03 liberal wrote: Your claim that regulation isn't to blame because insurers "get away" with denying coverage to those with pre existing conditions doesn't make sense... Insurance is designed to insure people who are healthy. You cannot insure someone who is already sick, anymore than you can insure a home that is already on fire. Forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions is effectively outlawing the insurance business. I agree with you that part of the problem is "crony capitalism," but it doesn't make sense that you then support greater regulation. Crony capitalism means businesses colluding with government through harmful regulation. So if you agree there is crony capitalism, then you agree with me that there must be much harmful regulation. And is why I believe that health coverage has no business belonging to the private sector. No more than I believe a person's retirement should be gambled on the free market casino (privatiization of Social Security). | ||
|
Sublimation
Canada25 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:08 Sublimation wrote: Could some explain this to me? Does it force people to get min. healthcare, or does it give people who don't have healthcare min. healthcare? Or am I completely off altogether It forces people that can afford it to pay for insurance from a healthcare provider. If you don't you are fined. In exchange healthcare providers cannot deny anyone coverage or set a lifetime cap on the amount of healthcare you need. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
It seems that the idea of the mandate, putting a person in the position to chose and then pay for said product on the federal level is considered wrong although one can find somewhat similar although abit different rules regarding states, in things like renters insurance, car insurance etc. Although those are a consequence of buying something not just a consequence of being born, although one could argue that such things as transportation and shelter is quite necessarily depending where you live. So how would this become a federal issue over a state issue? Simple if people travel to one state due to different health care laws, or if industry use different states in order to operate on a higher profit margin while still providing coverage in another state. the ladder i do not know but the former is quite simple when you look at Massachusetts. It can also be made into a federal problem if the states petition for the government to do so. After all if 2/3rd of the states vote to have a constitutional convention they can almost change anything about the constitution itself, short of a few things like the restriction of 2 senators per state etc. Ofc this approach of the states calling on the government wouldn't happen in a mostly republican controlled governors due to the 2010 election. The common cycle of vote to your wallet, as in i'm not happy with the econ so i'm voting the opposite of who is currently in power, often only strongly reflected on the federal level or governor position although technically the state legislators can call upon a constitutional convention it would vary between state on how such legislation would work out and it's much easier to kill something then to create something in office. As far as ethical reasons? I'd prefer a single payer system by far with simple priority based on health age and aliment, it would seem like the most logical approach to taking care of our own people, on the grounds of a healthy society is a productive and happy society. Ofc the US doesn't recognize shelter as a human right so if we allow homelessness then why would we care about health care. I get it, just dont like it. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:03 liberal wrote: Your claim that regulation isn't to blame because insurers "get away" with denying coverage to those with pre existing conditions doesn't make sense... Insurance is designed to insure people who are healthy. You cannot insure someone who is already sick, anymore than you can insure a home that is already on fire. Forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions is effectively outlawing the insurance business. I agree with you that part of the problem is "crony capitalism," but it doesn't make sense that you then support greater regulation. Crony capitalism means businesses colluding with government through harmful regulation. So if you agree there is crony capitalism, then you agree with me that there must be much harmful regulation. So the first paragraph is a great example as to why health insurance does not make sense in the for-profit market. You are denying healthcare to the people that actually need it. The whole idea of insurance is that all participants pool money together and then when we need the money we can take from that pool. That's how all insurance of all kinds works. And apparently you don't quite understand how pre-existing conditions worked. It was essentially a way for the healthcare company to use any loophole they could to justify not paying you. Something could happen to you suddenly, and if it was a genetic problem or something similar (or related to another genetic issue) then the healthcare company would simply not pay for you. Pre-existing conditions is a great example of ridiculous loopholes that healthcare companies used to essentially not do what they're paid to do. Seriously, essentially what you're saying is that any issue that is genetic or genetically predisposed should not be covered. That's a lot of diseases. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:01 Defacer wrote: I'm just so skeptical that general public would somehow, given the opportunity to select their own health care providers and insurers in a free market, be able to "force" them lowering the cost of health care in any meaningful way. Just look at what happened to amount of bad mortgages people bought that lead to the crisis in your country. This is absolutely cynical, but the average person is simply not objective enough or well-informed to challenge insurers or providers. Compound that with the fact that health care providers and insurers have your health to use as leverage. The individual mandate was a band aid solution that would give more people access to overpriced healthcare. It's a compromise, that's for sure. But I have no idea how you would approach the problem the other way, and force healthcare providers to charge less. I know you attribute that partially to wasteful bureaucracy, but the cynicism in me finds it hard to imagine that the health care industry wouldn't exploit less regulation for more profit. Edit: I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Here's another way of looking at it, it might clarify what I mean. Personally, when I hear that a visit to the doctor costs upwards of $150, that an ambulance ride costs upwards of $1,200, that some minimally invasive surgery costs some ridiculous amount like $75,000.... it sounds absurd to me. After all, the costs should not be anywhere near any of those numbers. I know for a fact that I could get the education necessary to do any of these things and charge people significantly less for any of these services. So what's stopping me, or anyone else? Suppose I wanted to get in the health care market myself. Suppose I wanted to start an ambulance company and give people rides to the hospital with all the care of a normal ambulance. I know for a fact I could provide such a ride for much less than $1,200 a trip. So what's stopping me? What's stopping anyone from getting in these markets and undercutting costs? When a doctor in India can do the same surgery for $8,000 that we charge for $75,000, what's stopping him from moving to America and opening up shop? The answer can only be one thing: The myriad system of regulations we have in place. I'm not saying that aren't sometimes good or desired, but are the people willing to pay the costs that we are bearing now? No, we aren't. You can tell that just by the rising medical tourism, where people are willing to forego the safety of our system to simply save themselves from bankruptcy. On April 01 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote: So the first paragraph is a great example as to why health insurance does not make sense in the for-profit market. You are denying healthcare to the people that actually need it. No, we aren't denying health care to anyone. What's being denied is health INSURANCE. Those are very different things. If you want to claim that people simply aren't capable of paying for health care without insurance, then once again we are back at square one: the problem of high costs. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Please provide ONE example of these evil regulations you speak of which prevents your hypothetical white knight (or rather Dark Knight ala right wing Batman) health care becoming reality. :D | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:38 screamingpalm wrote: @ liberal- Please provide ONE example of these evil regulations you speak of which prevents your hypothetical white knight health care becoming reality. :D http://www.azmd.gov/PhysicianCenter/1422.aspx It took me about 5 seconds on google. There are literally hundreds out there for the taking. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
32-1422. Basic requirements for granting a license to practice medicine A. An applicant for a license to practice medicine in this state pursuant to this article shall meet each of the following basic requirements: 1. Graduate from an approved school of medicine or receive a medical education which the board deems to be of equivalent quality. 2. Successfully complete an approved twelve month hospital internship, residency or clinical fellowship program. 3. Have the physical and mental capability to safely engage in the practice of medicine. 4. Have a professional record which indicates that the applicant has not committed any act or engaged in any conduct which would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee under this chapter. 5. Has not had a license to practice medicine revoked by a medical regulatory board in another jurisdiction in the United States for an act that occurred in that jurisdiction that constitutes unprofessional conduct pursuant to this chapter. 6. Is not currently under investigation, suspension or restriction by a medical regulatory board in another jurisdiction in the United States for an act that occurred in that jurisdiction that constitutes unprofessional conduct pursuant to this chapter. If the applicant is under investigation by a medical regulatory board in another jurisdiction, the board shall suspend the application process and may not issue or deny a license to the applicant until the investigation is resolved. 7. Has not surrendered, relinquished or given up a license to practice medicine in lieu of disciplinary action by a medical regulatory board in another jurisdiction in the United States for an act that occurred in that jurisdiction that constitutes unprofessional conduct pursuant to this chapter. 8. Pay all fees required by the board. 9. Complete the application as required by the board. B. The board may require the submission of such credentials or other evidence, written and oral, and make any investigation it deems necessary to adequately inform itself with respect to an applicant's ability to meet the requirements prescribed by this section, including a requirement that the applicant for licensure undergo a physical examination, a mental evaluation and an oral competence examination and interview, or any combination thereof, as the board deems proper. C. In determining if the requirements of subsection A, paragraph 4 have been met, if the board finds that the applicant committed an act or engaged in conduct that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action, the board shall determine to its satisfaction that the conduct has been corrected, monitored and resolved. If the matter has not been resolved, the board shall determine to its satisfaction that mitigating circumstances exist which prevent its resolution. D. In determining if the requirements of subsection A, paragraph 6, have been met, if another jurisdiction has taken disciplinary action against an applicant, the board shall determine to its satisfaction that the cause for the action was corrected and the matter resolved. If the matter has not been resolved by that jurisdiction, the board shall determine to its satisfaction that mitigating circumstances exist which prevent its resolution. E. The board may delegate authority to the executive director to deny licenses if applicants do not meet the requirements of this section. Just to make sure... these are the "evil" regulations you despise? | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:43 screamingpalm wrote: Just to make sure... these are the "evil" regulations you despise? You called them evil, not me. I simply stated they are a barrier to entry into the market which will necessarily raise costs. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:33 liberal wrote: No, we aren't denying health care to anyone. What's being denied is health INSURANCE. Those are very different things. If you want to claim that people simply aren't capable of paying for health care without insurance, then once again we are back at square one: the problem of high costs. The fuck? That's not argument. You're just pointing out a misspeak. We are still denying health INSURANCE to the people that actually need it. That is what you are still advocating. If you are paying for health insurance and it exploits a bullshit loophole to stop paying for your healthcare, then they are stealing from you. You have paid huge sums of money, probably for years, to do jack shit. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
The loop hole you are talking about is not exclusively what is meant when people talk about pre-existing conditions, although it has sometimes occured. Typically what they are talking about is people being denied coverage who were never covered to begin with. | ||
|
Sublimation
Canada25 Posts
On April 01 2012 11:12 Defacer wrote: It forces people that can afford it to pay for insurance from a healthcare provider. If you don't you are fined. In exchange healthcare providers cannot deny anyone coverage or set a lifetime cap on the amount of healthcare you need. Seems like an odd fix... I thought the problem was that lots of people were given coverage but then denied service? and this really doesn't seem to do anything for people who still can't afford it. This whole thing just doesn't make sense to me to be honest, it just seems that healthcare shouldn't be something that corporations should control. I mean a business will serve it's interests first right? Again sorry if I'm completely off, this whole thing seems unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
| ||
| ||
