Alternatives to Obamacare

[markomalley]

You seriously think that would work?!

:banghead:

You would seriously believe such a healthcare system would work? Giving the government a perfect monopoly to do as they please in healthcare, to deny service to whomever they wish, to raise taxes or premiums whenever they wish, to force citizens to stay in the country if they wish to leave to get better healthcare?

Our system would be worse than Canada.

---

On second thought, you might have just been sarcastic. If so, please tell me.

Read the last line of my previous post: ***Not **my cup of tea, but it would definitely be an alternative. *

 

[markomalley]

You seriously think that would work?!

:banghead:

You would seriously believe such a healthcare system would work? Giving the government a perfect monopoly to do as they please in healthcare, to deny service to whomever they wish, to raise taxes or premiums whenever they wish, to force citizens to stay in the country if they wish to leave to get better healthcare?

Our system would be worse than Canada.

---

On second thought, you might have just been sarcastic. If so, please tell me.

(See my previous post)

Now that we have that cleared up, let’s think about it a bit.

Would the government need to raise taxes or premiums? No, not at all. They would be in the perfect place to be able to control costs. If the 5 year plan says they will spend $100,000,000 on doctors…by golly, that’s what they’ll spend. If the 5 year plan says that patients will get out of hospitals 25% faster, then so be it. If the plan says that they will save $25 billion on CAT scans, then that’s what they’ll do.

There might not be quite enough doctors available, people might be released from the hospital a little sooner than they should, and people might have to travel a little bit and then wait a few months to get to that CAT scan, but, by golly, we’ll meet the targets in the plan! (See this article about patient parking in the Telegraph, for an example of exactly those metrics can be met in the UK)

 

[epan]

Death.

Solution to healthcare in America:
We are the richest country in the world yet we have the highest per capita health care costs. Malpractice lawsuits and corporate greed are to blame. Immunize doctors from all malpractice suits except those involving willful and wanton or intentional negligence. The cost of care would drop 90% overnight.

Are there any data to support your claim about the impact of malpractice claims?

 

[epan]

Another alternative would be completely nationalized medicine.

The government could use eminent domain to acquire all hospital, lab, clinic, pharmacy and private practice facilities used to practice medicine. And then they could revoke the licenses for all practitioners, only granting new, improved licenses to those practitioners who agreed to accept government employment.

They could also nationalize all drug companies in the US and make those employees government employees…or allow them (if they so chose) to look for another career.

And then the government could pass a law making it a felony to practice medicine commercially or to seek commercial medical care.

Finally, the government could start using exit visas (as well as entry visas) – and deny granting an exit visa to anybody who sought to go off-shore to receive medical treatment (after all, it would not be for the common good, would it?)

That is an alternative.

Not my cup of tea, but it would definitely be an alternative.

That sounds complicated and unconstitutional . Why not just make private health insurance illegal, and the government the payer? Then only the very wealthy would seek private care.

 

[freeRadical]

The reason I don’t think that the free market is sufficient is that it hasn’t been. Even now there are still many who don’t have health care. As catholics it is our duty to help the sick. Note that I’m not advocating socialized medicine. I’m looking for an alternative method that helps about the same number of people. Correct me if I’m wrong but the free market has failed to do that.

We’ve never had a free market in the healthcare industry or the health insurance industry.

 

[markomalley]

That sounds complicated and unconstitutional . Why not just make private health insurance illegal, and the government the payer? Then only the very wealthy would seek private care.

Because it wouldn’t be fair. And fairness is the most important thing, right?

How would it be fair if some millionaire would be able to travel to Costa Rica to get his healthcare, while some poor single mother has to deal with shoddy American care?

No, if you are going to have government healthcare, the only ones who should be exempt are the President and Members of Congress (and, of course, their personal staffers and family members).

On the other hand, if you would like to do free market healthcare with incentives to provide charitable care, that would be a different situation altogether.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

We’ve never had a free market in the healthcare industry or the health insurance industry.

True. True. Can you give me anything that shows how a completely free market would help the most people possible?

 

[freeRadical]

True. True. Can you give me anything that shows how a completely free market would help the most people possible?

Yeah, its called basic economics. The price mechanism is the best way to efficiently distribute scarce resources to the largest number of people. It is also the only mechanism able to coordinate billions of people all over the world.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Yeah, its called basic economics. The price mechanism is the best way to efficiently distribute scarce resources to the largest number of people. It is also the only mechanism able to coordinate billions of people all over the world.

Ok. So what in our current health care system doesn’t allow this to work? How can this be remedied?

 

[epan]

Because it wouldn’t be fair. And fairness is the most important thing, right?

How would it be fair if some millionaire would be able to travel to Costa Rica to get his healthcare, while some poor single mother has to deal with shoddy American care?

No, if you are going to have government healthcare, the only ones who should be exempt are the President and Members of Congress (and, of course, their personal staffers and family members).

On the other hand, if you would like to do free market healthcare with incentives to provide charitable care, that would be a different situation altogether.

Now, that is a rather odd response, considering your post which I was responding to.

But moving on from that. If you are talking about fairness, then how is a free market relevant? If a free market system has any distinguishing characteristic, in terms of social justice, it is its inherent unfairness. It is by definition unfair.

 

[triumphguy]

Worse than Canada? A Canadian friend of ours told us of his months long ordeal to have a problem solved. He went from specialist to specialist to specialist (according to the required procedure) until, finally, he was put on a medication that solved 98% of his problem. He was elated. His wife is a nurse by the way.

He warned us about “socialized medicine,” with a grin.

No taxation without representation. According to a judge, Obamacare is a tax, and the IRS will back him up on that with a penalty if you don’t get it.

Best,
Ed

Yes, our system would be worse than Canada, because we would be implementing everything they are AND we’d have our Dear Leader guiding the ship.

Your system is already worse than Canada’s.

It costs far more per capita, and the standards of care are worse, and millions are uninsured.

For instance our life expectancy is longer and infant mortality much lower.

Also it’s not unusual to see people asking for prayers on this very forum because they are facing financial catastrophe because of healthcare costs.

Doesn’t that raise questions of justice among members of this site?

 

[freeRadical]

Now, that is a rather odd response, considering your post which I was responding to.

But moving on from that. If you are talking about fairness, then how is a free market relevant? If a free market system has any distinguishing characteristic, in terms of social justice, it is its inherent unfairness. It is by definition unfair.

What do you mean by “fair” and how is the free market “unfair”?

 

[DarkLight]

No,

The reason it works is there is not much beuracracy and it’s Christian Values keep it honest and safe.

Sadly the secular world would probably ruin it.

More to the point, medishare programs don’t take pre-existing conditions. I’ve never been able to buy into one and never will be.

I think your position is reasonable, but I would like to point out that the reason the free market has not been sufficient, as you say, is because it hasn’t been allowed to be. Government regulations have stifled it.

Think about all the areas which the government hasn’t (yet) completely taken over; those areas are doing pretty well. Take technology, for example Companies like Apple produce the most amazing technology the world has ever seen, because they are made up of intelligent, hard-working individuals who are allowed to operate in a free, stable market environment. That’s a perfect example of what a truly free market can do. If the free market “doesn’t work,” it’s because it’s not allowed to actually be a free market.

The government hampers the market with excessive regulations and taxes, and when the market buckles under the weight, the government says, “Look, the free market failed! That must mean we need more regulations!” and they persuade people to give them more and more power. That’s exactly what they want.

I’m not intending to come across as angry; I’m just explaining why, as you pointed out, the free market sometimes appears to “fail.”

The trouble with free market is that it has no incentive to cover people who can’t pay. Not to mention it’s far more susceptible to monopolies because people won’t go without health care if they can afford it.

With an apple product - if you don’t have money, you don’t buy apple products. If apple raises their prices, people buy something else. Even if apple were the only game in town, people would stop buying new computers.

With healthcare, if you don’t have money and you get sick, well there’s a serious problem. And if you do have money, but the company charges a huge amount - well you take out a second mortgage, because you need that health care.

 

[epan]

What do you mean by “fair” and how is the free market “unfair”?

The dictionary definition works: “treating people in a way that does not favor some over others”

A free market system favors those who have more money over those who have less money. There is nothing fair about it, when it comes to paying for healthcare.

For example, in the US, healthcare without insurance is unaffordable for the majority. The cost of a single cardiac event may exceed 1/2 million dollars, etc… So, who can afford medical care other than the mega rich? those who have insurance. insurance is expensive, some are covered by government programs. some are covered by employers. some can afford to buy it privately. some cannot afford insurance, which seems to be the principal objection to Obamacare. some people seem to feel that those who cannot afford healthcare should not receive healthcare. i would not call that “fair”, by the definition stated.

so, let’s say that a person is covered by an employer, and that person lives and supports a family from one paycheck to another. Let’s also suppose, for argument, that person has a child who has a disability which is fairly cheap to care for in current terms, let’s say $20,000 per month. Now, let’s imagine that this parent has a car accident and takes about a year to recover, and also incurs about $250 K in medical bills, while unable to work, and while unable to pay the $20k per month to pay for the base medical costs for the child.

With no private insurance, the state will assist the disabled child, once the family has lost all of its assets. However, it will probably do nothing for the injured parent, particularly if a male. The best option for the family will probably be to file for bankruptcy to discharge the debt.

Is it fair that this family is now in bankruptcy? Is it fair that the discharged debt now falls on the healthcare provider? Is it fair that the price of the medical care was inflated to compensate for the individuals who can’t afford medical care, and who are discharging debt through bankruptcy or other means? It is a vicious circle.

This is not a far fetched scenario. The most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is being unable to pay medical bills.

 

[dshix]

The dictionary definition works: “treating people in a way that does not favor some over others”

A free market system favors those who have more money over those who have less money. There is nothing fair about it, when it comes to paying for healthcare.

For example, in the US, healthcare without insurance is unaffordable for the majority. The cost of a single cardiac event may exceed 1/2 million dollars, etc… So, who can afford medical care other than the mega rich? those who have insurance. insurance is expensive, some are covered by government programs. some are covered by employers. some can afford to buy it privately. some cannot afford insurance, which seems to be the principal objection to Obamacare. some people seem to feel that those who cannot afford healthcare should not receive healthcare. i would not call that “fair”, by the definition stated.

so, let’s say that a person is covered by an employer, and that person lives and supports a family from one paycheck to another. Let’s also suppose, for argument, that person has a child who has a disability which is fairly cheap to care for in current terms, let’s say $20,000 per month. Now, let’s imagine that this parent has a car accident and takes about a year to recover, and also incurs about $250 K in medical bills, while unable to work, and while unable to pay the $20k per month to pay for the base medical costs for the child.

With no private insurance, the state will assist the disabled child, once the family has lost all of its assets. However, it will probably do nothing for the injured parent, particularly if a male. The best option for the family will probably be to file for bankruptcy to discharge the debt.

Is it fair that this family is now in bankruptcy? Is it fair that the discharged debt now falls on the healthcare provider? Is it fair that the price of the medical care was inflated to compensate for the individuals who can’t afford medical care, and who are discharging debt through bankruptcy or other means? It is a vicious circle.

This is not a far fetched scenario. The most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is being unable to pay medical bills.

And where, may I ask, does anyone or anything say that life is fair? This country, when it had a truly free market, was a country of opportunity, not of fairness.

It still has a remnant of that freedom, and it still experiencing this success and opportunity to an extent. However, if we continue on the road that we are, we will lose it.

 

[DarkLight]

And where, may I ask, does anyone or anything say that life is fair? This country, when it had a truly free market, was a country of opportunity, not of fairness.

It still has a remnant of that freedom, and it still experiencing this success and opportunity to an extent. However, if we continue on the road that we are, we will lose it.

Then think of it as about opportunity. Where would the opportunity be for someone like me without some program to provide insurance? Otherwise the only “opportunity” I would get would be to hope someone’s kind enough to give me a place to stay and food to eat because I can’t work without medical care. I’d much rather be working, but at my age you can’t reasonably expect to get a full-time job with benefits anymore. Not for the last 10 or 15 years.

 

[bsroufek]

What we need is affordable health care, not affordable insurance. We need to address the huge overcharges in health care by physicians, who often charge many thousands for minor things. Hospitals and Provider charges should be regulated IMO.

One major flaw in Obamacare is that it demands that we give our money to insurance companies, which are charging more and covering very little (high deductibles), not to those providing our health care. Insurance is a multitrillion dollar industry which gives very limited benefit to us but much to the ins. companies.

If we still use the insurance route, then the government should regulate how much the insurance companies can charge, which apparently they don’t; they apparently believe in the “competition” model. What I’ve found is that unregulated capitalism tends to abuse the populace by charging much and giving little, buying too low and selling too high. Even the Church teaching is that capitalism should be regulated, or it gets abusive. Obamacare doesn’t even attempt to regulate how high the ins. companies can charge or how high their “deductibles” can be (their so high that they basically don’t provide anything in most cases).

 

[epan]

And where, may I ask, does anyone or anything say that life is fair? This country, when it had a truly free market, was a country of opportunity, not of fairness.

It still has a remnant of that freedom, and it still experiencing this success and opportunity to an extent. However, if we continue on the road that we are, we will lose it.

The rest of the advanced countries in the world do see access to healthcare as a basic human right. They are able to provide comparable care to all of their people at a lower price than the US system does to some of its people.

I guess it depends on what you value. The reaction to the incredible greed of the early 20th century was to redistribute a small part of the wealth to those who were less fortunate, and to improve working conditions. Some would say that it is the place of government to provide regulation of the medical and pharmacological services delivery systems. Some would say that government public health agencies are a good thing.

Your opportunity theory is not entirely accurate, however. Since the beginning of this country, the majority of the property has been owned by a tiny minority of the population. George Washington was perhaps the wealthiest man in America, at the time. There is an historic theory that the real goal of the American revolution was to seize vast wealth of American land from British royalty to transfer it to the new American royalty.

When measured in terms of social mobility and educational achievement, the US is the clear loser among our technological and world economic peers. The very things which you claim improve opportunities actually decrease it, when compare to other countries with more “fairness” built into their societies.

The huge buildup of wealth in this country post 1945 was largely a natural consequence of the destruction of every other country’s industrial capacity during WW2. There was a delusion through the 50’s and 60’s that our prosperity was entirely due to the American system. We had no competitors. Now that much of the world has closed the gap, we find that we are falling behind.

Finally, I would ask if you would advocate eliminating the social security system, and medical assistance for the elderly, etc…? If that is your idea of an ideal society, then you and I Re many miles apart in our conception of a fair and just society.

 

[SamH]

Your system is already worse than Canada’s.

It costs far more per capita, and the standards of care are worse, and millions are uninsured.

For instance our life expectancy is longer and infant mortality much lower.

Also it’s not unusual to see people asking for prayers on this very forum because they are facing financial catastrophe because of healthcare costs.

Doesn’t that raise questions of justice among members of this site?

Unless of course you ned a CAT scan - then suddenly Canada doesn’t look to good.

 

[estesbob]

I personally disagree with Obamacare and after poking around this forum a little found that many on here agree with me. So does anyone have any alternative ideas that cover around the same number of people and don’t sink our economy. Personally I think that this job should be given to the states but I’d like to see what others think. Thank you and God bless.

Means tested subsidies for the poor and let insurers sell insurance across state lines