Lets hear the sniveling over this one!!

[Black_Rose]

Private it very expensive down here. Health insurance is kind of a new thing in NZL, probably only been around 10 - 15 years in the public domain.

I know that to see a neurologist privatey, its $150 for about half an hour and that was back in the mid 90s.

The problem with the NZL system is that the previous left wing govt. built up a lot of red tape. Money was going into teh health system, but it was going on managers and non-clinical services.

Mind you, you can get all the abortions you want down here on the tax payers’ tab, hell, if you’re too far along that we can’t provide the second and third trimester abortion you want, the govt. will pay for you and up to four support persons to go across to Ausssie to have it done there. Will even put you up in a swanky hotel with spending money!! A first trimester abortion down here is about $1500ish. We have 18,000 approx. abortions a year. The govt pays for free contraception, in fact, the Ministry of Health has jsut approved a new long term contraceptive implant which costs $380.

Yet, all the while, if you have serious allergies, requiring an epi-pen, you can go get stuffed, and an epi-pen is about $250.

Its all about priorities. What kind of “health services” are important to the govt? We all know what Obama thinks about abortion…

Well, your post didn’t demonstrate the inferiority or superiority of private and public systems, but I suppose the quality of the system would vary depending the variables of incentives, priorities, and funding. But you still haven’t demonstrated how she would receive better treatment in a private system if she were poor. Perhaps, a private neurologist may commendably give her a free appointment out of charitable benevolence by asking for charitably assistance entails the feeling of humiliation would would deter her from asking in addition to risking being rejected by the neurologist. But under a private system, no neurologist is under any obligation to provide for their citizens welfare (unless the state assumes the responsibility be offering to defray them and exercising its monopsonic power.)

 

[FlyCatcher]

Ok,

but what macroeconomic system would help him the most? Why wouldn’t a welfare state that can assume some responsibility for in individual’s welfare help him the most since waiting for a few months for a doctors appointment entails much less sacrifice (for him) than saving up $90 or $250 for a doctors visit? It would seem that rejecting the welfare state only benefits those with adequate financial means with no financial insecurity that can immediately pay for medical care? Why is a private system a better mechanism of rationing than a welfare state that concerns itself on its citizen’s welfare? The private system rations access based on pecuniary resources and that means those without money would get left out. It seems that wealthy individuals want to reject the welfare state so they do not have to undergo the burden of supporting it and have a chance to go on their pulpit and preach about “personal responsibility”.

I do not care whether redistributive taxation is immortal or not, but what system would benefit him the most.

Why would a system that opposes the welfare state be suited to his needs more?

Today…right now…this moment…no macro economic system will do squat for him. Nor will any discussion of the various merits of different systems. Nothing will help other than getting to a doctor now.

So, moving on…

The basic flaw in most health care systems is in the fact that the consumer has no incentive to make rational choices. The consumer is separated from the payer. Hence the consumer doesn’t care how much he is consuming since he doesn’t pay the marginal cost.

If he has drug coverage, he doesn’t care if hegets a name brand for $20 or a $5 generic. He doesn’t care if the doctor orders 100 blood tests or 20. If he were paying the marginal cost, he would be concerned because he pays. he would ask questions. he would make decisions.

One might object that the consumer pays for coverage, but that is very different from making a rational decision about each incremental purchase of care. He makes that type of rational choice about everything else he buys, but not health care.

I think wer have a fine health care system, but it has been twisted out of shape by government. For example:

1. It is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines.
2. Government mandates conditions that all policies must cover. .
3. Government limits the geographic area within states where a company can operate.
4. Government limits the amount that premiums may vary from one person to another.
5. Government allows malpractice tort suits that push up costs.
6. Government mandated Medicare problems in small areas are fixed by applying unnecessary rules to the whole country.

The result? Premiums for a 25-year-old in New York are six times what the same guy pays in Kentucky for the same coverage.

I can buy any insurance I want across state lines except health. That greatly limits my options. At the same time,people complain that there are too few companies in their area.

Companies can’t design policies to fit individuals. They must force coverage that consumers don’t want.

In a nation of 300 million, we can’t form pools to meet specific needs. Why make all policies cover mental health when many don’t want the coverage? Those who want it can surely find a pool in a nation of 300 million.

In short, insurance cannot be structured to provide what people want. It is structured to provide what various lobbying and disease interest groups want.

Those 45 million uninsured Obama talked about? 10 million are unmarried, between 20 and 30, with incomes over $50,000. They choose to be uninsured bacause 1) they are healthy, and 2) governmant has so screwed up policies that the cost makes no sense to them. The risk/reward ratio is irrational.

On the subject of the 45 million… Whare did that come from? it was a snapshot survey taken by the Commerce dept in 2007 asking igf someone was uninsured at any time in the last year. It is a completely inadequate basis on which to make national policy. We don’t have anything else. So, we don’t even know what the problem is. All we hear is poor Mrs. Jones in Cleveland who has condition X.

So, what to do? Lift the government restrictions and let the market provide what people want and need. Let companies offer low cost policies with high deduactbles. Let them offer medical savings plans. Let them sell women policies that don’t include prostate cancer.

Laser eye surgery and plastic surgery are excellent case studies .Neither is coivered by insurance, but both have made exceptional strides in the past thirty years. And costs have come down while all other medical services have gone up. Why? People pay out of pocket. It isn’tinsured. They pay attention to what they pay and what they get. The industry had to do better. It did.

Note Tom Daschle was Obama’s first choice for secretary of HHS. After leaving the senate he wrote a book on health care. He said we had to limit the introduction of new drugs, technology, procedures, and treatments so they didn’t contribute to cost increases. Think about that. If you have Parkinsons, tough luck. No more research. Live with it. Diabetes? Shut up and take your shot. No new research. This is the common wisdom among the folks that want to institute national health care.

Suppose that had been policy for the past 30 yerars. No MRI. No artificial knees. No artificial hips. No high blood pressure medicibne. No cholesterol medicine. Go off and die so we don’t have to pay for you. Keeping the new stuff out is a hidden rationing that most fools will never know about.

I don’t think any of us are smart enough to come up with a comprehensive solution. We haven’t done that with anything, why expect to do it with health care? Get rid of government meddling and takesimple and incremental steps.

Enough. I can go on forever. Bla Bla Bla…

 

[aspawloski4th]

no… I just know more than a few people who work for the Fed and have spent more than a little time studying it. They BUY and SELL things. They do not create money out of thin air. You don’t get past the 100 level of economics without knowing how the Fed works.

The Fed’s work may be complicated, but it isn’t secret. You’ve bought into an insane conspiracy theory with ZERO connection to reality.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm

Well Fr Gruner’s guest John Mc Manus, The New American magazine, Barrie Konicov, and talk show host Chuck Harder have all come up with the same thing. You sound just like those who are brain waashed into thinking that the Freeemasons are a good group instead of whats propped up for non masons to see look deeper. Most will tell you there are 32 degrees. Bill Schnebloen who got up to the 90th degree before he realized all the evil they are a part of will tell you there is 120 degrees.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Today…right now…this moment…no macro economic system will do squat for him. Nor will any discussion of the various merits of different systems. Nothing will help other than getting to a doctor now.

So, moving on…

The basic flaw in most health care systems is in the fact that the consumer has no incentive to make rational choices. The consumer is separated from the payer. Hence the consumer doesn’t care how much he is consuming since he doesn’t pay the marginal cost.

If he has drug coverage, he doesn’t care if hegets a name brand for $20 or a $5 generic. He doesn’t care if the doctor orders 100 blood tests or 20. If he were paying the marginal cost, he would be concerned because he pays. he would ask questions. he would make decisions.

One might object that the consumer pays for coverage, but that is very different from making a rational decision about each incremental purchase of care. He makes that type of rational choice about everything else he buys, but not health care.

I think wer have a fine health care system, but it has been twisted out of shape by government. For example:

1. It is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines.
2. Government mandates conditions that all policies must cover. .
3. Government limits the geographic area within states where a company can operate.
4. Government limits the amount that premiums may vary from one person to another.
5. Government allows malpractice tort suits that push up costs.
6. Government mandated Medicare problems in small areas are fixed by applying unnecessary rules to the whole country.

The result? Premiums for a 25-year-old in New York are six times what the same guy pays in Kentucky for the same coverage.

I can buy any insurance I want across state lines except health. That greatly limits my options. At the same time,people complain that there are too few companies in their area.

Companies can’t design policies to fit individuals. They must force coverage that consumers don’t want.

In a nation of 300 million, we can’t form pools to meet specific needs. Why make all policies cover mental health when many don’t want the coverage? Those who want it can surely find a pool in a nation of 300 million.

In short, insurance cannot be structured to provide what people want. It is structured to provide what various lobbying and disease interest groups want.

Those 45 million uninsured Obama talked about? 10 million are unmarried, between 20 and 30, with incomes over $50,000. They choose to be uninsured bacause 1) they are healthy, and 2) governmant has so screwed up policies that the cost makes no sense to them. The risk/reward ratio is irrational.

On the subject of the 45 million… Whare did that come from? it was a snapshot survey taken by the Commerce dept in 2007 asking igf someone was uninsured at any time in the last year. It is a completely inadequate basis on which to make national policy. We don’t have anything else. So, we don’t even know what the problem is. All we hear is poor Mrs. Jones in Cleveland who has condition X.

So, what to do? Lift the government restrictions and let the market provide what people want and need. Let companies offer low cost policies with high deduactbles. Let them offer medical savings plans. Let them sell women policies that don’t include prostate cancer.

Laser eye surgery and plastic surgery are excellent case studies .Neither is coivered by insurance, but both have made exceptional strides in the past thirty years. And costs have come down while all other medical services have gone up. Why? People pay out of pocket. It isn’tinsured. They pay attention to what they pay and what they get. The industry had to do better. It did.

Note Tom Daschle was Obama’s first choice for secretary of HHS. After leaving the senate he wrote a book on health care. He said we had to limit the introduction of new drugs, technology, procedures, and treatments so they didn’t contribute to cost increases. Think about that. If you have Parkinsons, tough luck. No more research. Live with it. Diabetes? Shut up and take your shot. No new research. This is the common wisdom among the folks that want to institute national health care.

Suppose that had been policy for the past 30 yerars. No MRI. No artificial knees. No artificial hips. No high blood pressure medicibne. No cholesterol medicine. Go off and die so we don’t have to pay for you. Keeping the new stuff out is a hidden rationing that most fools will never know about.

I don’t think any of us are smart enough to come up with a comprehensive solution. We haven’t done that with anything, why expect to do it with health care? Get rid of government meddling and takesimple and incremental steps.

Enough. I can go on forever. Bla Bla Bla…

And let the big insurance companies go in collusion together to rip us off while still looking good. Really smart!

 

[YADA]

Sometimes I think some on CAF want to live in a Catholic theocracy. Respect Christ they say. Vote life. But they forget life does not end at birth. And while respecting Christ they appear to overlook what Christ said in Matt 25:35-46.

Really - you sound like our Deacon who upon meeting a very outspoken pro-life advocate in our parish for the first time commented to me that the man was very intense, he admired his pro-life stance but it was sad tht he was a ‘single-issue’ advocate … I was taken back-because I know that this man supports with his time talent and treasure and inner city parish … he volunteered three days a week at that other parishes food pantry - a retired dr - he provided some medical care to the homeless and reguarly contributed to this parish to keep its ministry to the poor operational - in addition to being a tireless advocate for the innocent unborn. This man gives hours and hours of his time to help those in need in all walks of life and in all stages … but he would never go around bragging about his deeds - his witness is one of action - being an advocate by doing … The unborn of course have only our voices to raise in their defense - they cannot take to the streets for themselves nor come here to a forum andplead for their lives. the unborn cannot vote … the homeless, unemplyed and uninsured can vote and protest and request help …

Please do not tell me that I care nothing for those in need … I have not once ever met our democratic Catholic governor at a JOIN [JOIN assists people in moving from the streets into permanent housing] fundraiser or at a Father Taaffe Foundation fundraiser [The Father Taaffe Foundation operates three homes for unwed mothers] … he did chair a GALA Fundraiser for NARAL Pro-choice Oregon … Made the front page of the Oregonian Newspaper … but we all know how caring the left is … how religiously they pay their taxes and how generous they are in their charitable giving

 

[CMatt25]

She needs to shoot herself again. Maybe then someone will take care of her.

I’d like for someone to show me where the Constitution says the Government OWES everyone healthcare. We have too many liberals.

9th Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words the right of all to affordable quality health care shall not be construed to be denied.

 

[FlyCatcher]

Cant find anything about prechristian Lithuania or current waetherforcasting models at my library. Or anything aboutantiquradios, or oxalate kidneystones, or the orgin of blood types… At mine.

So what? You expect someone to pay for your recreation? Tried inter-library loans? You seem to think others owe you something.

 

[aspawloski4th]

So what? You expect someone to pay for your recreation? Tried inter-library loans? You seem to think others owe you something.

Everyone owe everyone! If you don’t believe that you are not a Catholic. When Cain asked am I my brother’s keep when God asked him where Abel is, the teacher in grade school said a resounding Yes. The most conservative priest I have ever known Fr Antekeir said YES. If you don’t like helping others go live in a cave!

 

[tjm190]

Well Fr Gruner’s gues John Mc Manus, The New American magazine, Barrie Konicov, and talk show host Chuck Harder have all come up with the same thing. You sound just like those who are brain waashed into thinking that the Freeemasons are a good group instead of whats propped up for non masons to see look deeper. Most will tell you there are 32 degrees. Bill Schnebloen who got up to the 90th degree before he realized all the evil they are a part of will tell you there is 120 degrees.

Oh, well if lots of people believe an unfounded conspiracy theory it must be true. You admit that the Federal Reserve makes money. It makes lots of money- that’s where the money for it’s operations come from.

The federal reserve is a crucial part of the US’s economic sovereignty. A nation that is to succeed to the extent that we expect modern nations to needs to control its own currency.

the gold standard is no more stable than a fiat one- it’s just that nobody is able to control the instability.

 

[CMatt25]

I can relate to this woman. I injured my shoulder October 17th, 2009. Since then I HAVE had an MRI done ($1,100) and they said I needed surgery but wanted to do an Arthogram beforehand. The doctor gave me a Cordizone shot and told me to come back in a month. I ran out of money and STILL haven’t had any more work done. (I have picked up a second job to make ends meet, but I haven’t made any real headway yet.)

This should pain is also making it hard to sleep, so I know how the chronic pain and lack of sleep (without having the funds to do anything about it) can make a person start to think of “creative” ways to get it fixed. (I have a gun, and thought about shooting my shoulder as well, lol…but I didn’t do it because 1) it’s dishonest, 2) seems painful, and 3) it’s crazy, lol.)

Hopefully I get it fixed soon, because the depression is getting more…depressing. =/

E.E.N.S., I will pray for you.

 

[CMatt25]

Come on now surely you’re smarter than that? So because I believe that government shouldn’t have a role in every single aspect of our lives then that means there can be no legitimate role for government at all? That my friend is a logical fallacy and you know it.

So it’s not me but YOU who gets to decide what aspects. Now I get it!

 

[tjm190]

Everyone owe everyone! If you don’t believe that you are not a Catholic. When Cain asked am I my brother’s keep when God asked him where Abel is, the teacher in grade school said a resounding Yes. The most conservative priest I have ever known Fr Antekeir said YES. If you don’t like helping others go live in a cave!

I love helping people- I don’t like forcing others to help people.

 

[FlyCatcher]

And let the big insurance companies go in collusion together to rip us off while still looking good. Really smart!

I said nothing about collusion among insurance companies.

 

[FlyCatcher]

Everyone owe everyone! If you don’t believe that you are not a Catholic. When Cain asked am I my brother’s keep when God asked him where Abel is, the teacher in grade school said a resounding Yes. The most conservative priest I have ever known Fr Antekeir said YES. If you don’t like helping others go live in a cave!

History shows Catholics are no more generous than anyone else in the world.

 

[CMatt25]

Actually my wife is on disability. She has severe psoriatic arthraitis, which is develops in about 10% of people who have psoriasis. She has psoriasis very bad also. Iv’e taken her to enough doctor appointments for her ailments to know what doctors cost… Much of our money is spent taking care of her ailments. I have to be ready for her diabetes to actup at a moments notice, because she is diebetic on her way to being a brittle diebetic. Her cholesterol is sky high, and she averages an ear ingection a year. Don’t tell me the price of doctors, Iv’e had my nose rubbed in it.

I am going to pray for you and your wife too. God bless you both.

 

[CMatt25]

It would seem that rejecting the welfare state only benefits those with adequate financial means with no financial insecurity that can immediately pay for medical care?

In some cases adequate until a catastrophe hits.

 

[YADA]

Everyone owe everyone! If you don’t believe that you are not a Catholic. When Cain asked am I my brother’s keep when God asked him where Abel is, the teacher in grade school said a resounding Yes. The most conservative priest I have ever known Fr Antekeir said YES. If you don’t like helping others go live in a cave!

When Cain asked if he was his brothers keeper … he was guilty of having already murdered his brother and he was speaking for himself and God held him accountable …

Jesus commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and care for the sick etc … individually … Jesus never said for us to take the wealth of others and give it to those in need … in fact when Judas - the keeper of the purse for the apostles - complained about the use of oil that could be used to feed those in need Jesus rebuked him …

We get that same attitude in the rmarks about the welth of the Vatican… how they should sell those sculptures, paintings and property to feed the poor …

The government is not a charitable organization, welfare checks are not charity, taxation though necessary should be as limited as possible. Government should allow individual freedom and a place for innovation and industry to flourish … When we spend our time trying to get someone else to provide 'something’ for us that we should provide for our selves then there is no freedom and no choice … we sell our souls and worship at the altar of the government … its a false God … I put my trust in God - I live according to his precepts not the government. I will provide help to my fellow man and do so cheerfully … I know that to feed the poor in my community it is more economica to spend that dollar in direct food support … if I send that same dollar to Washington it will come back as about Sixty-four cents … maybe even less …

 

[CMatt25]

Remove the word ’ leftist’ and insert ’ the far right’.

:clapping:

 

[CMatt25]

I read a few of the replies here and I can see both sides kind of. I think that yea, she probably could have found some help somewhere had she looked, of course I’m not in her area so I’m not sure what help is around there.
Being that I’m kind of in her position (no insurance, pre existing med condition etc) I can understand how expensive medical care is. I mean, I have to pay $100 every appt with my dr, that’s just the appt, if she wants tests then that’s even more.
In all honesty, in the last 6 months I’ve had issues with both my hip and shoulder being dislocated (workout injury)… what did I do? I toughed it out. Luckily I wrecked my husband’s bike and got thrown from the bike which popped them back in (yea, weird luck eh? lol). I would NEVER think of shooting myself in order to get a medical condition taken care of… I’ve had the chronic pain and after a couple of weeks you kind of get used to it (at least I did).

Rachel, thank God for bikes. I will pray for your recovery too and may God lessen your pain. God bless.

 

[Black_Rose]

Today…right now…this moment…no macro economic system will do squat for him. Nor will any discussion of the various merits of different systems. Nothing will help other than getting to a doctor now.

So, moving on…

Well, there are certain existing systems one can use to conduct appropriate comparisons without being idealistic (implying unrealistic and uneconomical), imaginative, or novel policy wonk. For instance, would his predicament be improved he was a Swedish or Canadian citizen receiving health coverage from the state. Those systems seem to reject the principle of individual responsibility for one’s welfare for collective responsibility.

The basic flaw in most health care systems is in the fact that the consumer has no incentive to make rational choices. The consumer is separated from the payer. Hence the consumer doesn’t care how much he is consuming since he doesn’t pay the marginal cost.

If he has drug coverage, he doesn’t care if hegets a name brand for $20 or a $5 generic. He doesn’t care if the doctor orders 100 blood tests or 20. If he were paying the marginal cost, he would be concerned because he pays. he would ask questions. he would make decisions.

One might object that the consumer pays for coverage, but that is very different from making a rational decision about each incremental purchase of care. He makes that type of rational choice about everything else he buys, but not health care.

I doubt many individuals are capable of making rational choices. In addition, not switching to a generic maybe due to risk aversion. For instance, a patient taking Lipitor who is content with the drug may not being will to take pravastatin due to fears of unanticipated side effects. However, a public system also has incentives for reducing costs and can accomplish this by exercising its monopsonic power and restricting its formulary by excluding brand name drugs if they have an effective generic equivalent.

Don’t insurance companies have an incentive to restrict their formularies by increasing the premium of brand named drugs with generic equivalents?

I think wer have a fine health care system, but it has been twisted out of shape by government. For example:

1. It is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines.
2. Government mandates conditions that all policies must cover. .
3. Government limits the geographic area within states where a company can operate.
4. Government limits the amount that premiums may vary from one person to another.
5. Government allows malpractice tort suits that push up costs.
6. Government mandated Medicare problems in small areas are fixed by applying unnecessary rules to the whole country.

The result? Premiums for a 25-year-old in New York are six times what the same guy pays in Kentucky for the same coverage.

I absolutely loathe American conservatism (although I do admire paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan sometimes) and rarely agree with them except on the issue of immigration. I am surprised that you did not mention immigration draining public resources since conservatives tend to mention that, although I doubt that conservatives with political power are adversely affected by immigration to do anything about it.

Laser eye surgery and plastic surgery are excellent case studies .Neither is coivered by insurance, but both have made exceptional strides in the past thirty years. And costs have come down while all other medical services have gone up. Why? People pay out of pocket. It isn’tinsured. They pay attention to what they pay and what they get. The industry had to do better. It did.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense since it could also apply to other medical expenditures that are also insured. The prices for generic drugs have fallen drastically too, but this is due to patent expiration and their demonstrated efficacy in clinic trials and decades of use by the general public.

Note Tom Daschle was Obama’s first choice for secretary of HHS. After leaving the senate he wrote a book on health care. He said we had to limit the introduction of new drugs, technology, procedures, and treatments so they didn’t contribute to cost increases. Think about that. If you have Parkinsons, tough luck. No more research. Live with it. Diabetes? Shut up and take your shot. No new research. This is the common wisdom among the folks that want to institute national health care.

Well, there is plenty of private funding for those diseases based on their disease burden in high-income countries. The “failings” of existing research is due to diminishing returns of scientific research, not the inefficiency of the government or “free market”. The product of this research are pharmaceuticals that only able to yield marginal improvements while costing an exorbitant amount of money. But we are not talking about whether a government should fund Avastin (or a similar novel expensive drug) for a terminal cancer patient, but whether the state should pay through redistributive taxation for doctors appointments and MRIs, not expensive wonder drugs that need large trials to generate enough statistical power to show a marginal benefit.

Here are good blog posts:
robertfortner.posterous.com/tag/medicine

But my main question concerns his predicament, why would the US health system (even with your proposed changes) be superior for him when compared to the Canadian, Swedish, or French systems?