Should broke people receive health care?

[jssaxon]

you do know that we are not the “richest” country in the world…
Richest Countries in the World
Rank Country GDP - per capita
1 Luxembourg $ 68,800
2 Equatorial Guinea $ 50,200
3 United Arab Emirates $ 49,700
4 Norway $ 47,800
5 Ireland $ 43,600
6 United States $ 43,500
7 Andorra $ 38,800
8 Iceland $ 38,100
9 Denmark $ 37,000
10 Austria $ 35,500
Source: CIA World Factbook

OK, so we have the 6th highest average income, that’s great! We are also the most powerful nation with the largest economy.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

OK, so we have the 6th highest average income, that’s great! We are also the most powerful nation with the largest economy.

A region’s gross domestic product, or GDP, is one of the ways of measuring the size of its economy.

So who has the largest economy??

 

[vern_humphrey]

A region’s gross domestic product, or GDP, is one of the ways of measuring the size of its economy.

So who has the largest economy??

That’s not really relevant to the discussion – since the issue is can we afford to pay for a “single payer” system. No matter how large the economy is, if the average person is feeling the pinch, added taxes will make his situation worse.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

That’s not really relevant to the discussion – since the issue is can we afford to pay for a “single payer” system. No matter how large the economy is, if the average person is feeling the pinch, added taxes will make his situation worse.

I totally agree!

 

[drafdog]

The United States of America is the only major industrialized nation which does not have universal health care for its citizens.

Think about it.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

The United States of America is the only major industrialized nation which does not have universal health care for its citizens.

Think about it.

Matthew

Yep – we could be like Canada, with a per-capita national debt greater than the United States (but without the United States’ international committments) and providing our citizens with the best medical technologies the 1970s had. We could see our doctors fleeing the country and setting up clinics over the border – and see desperate citizens driving thousands of miles to pay – out of their own pockets – for treatment the government is supposed to provide.

 

[mary_bobo]

Yep – we could be like Canada, with a per-capita national debt greater than the United States (but without the United States’ international committments) and providing our citizens with the best medical technologies the 1970s had. We could see our doctors fleeing the country and setting up clinics over the border – and see desperate citizens driving thousands of miles to pay – out of their own pockets – for treatment the government is supposed to provide.

And you did not mention that we would have to wait months and months for the delivery of that 1970s health care. I tried the Canadian system when we lived there and darn near died. I’ll take what I have now, thank you very much. As intelligent as we are, surely we can come up with a system to help those in need without lowering everyone else to the lowest common denominator.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And you did not mention that we would have to wait months and months for the delivery of that 1970s health care. I tried the Canadian system when we lived there and darn near died. I’ll take what I have now, thank you very much. As intelligent as we are, surely we can come up with a system to help those in need without lowering everyone else to the lowest common denominator.

Of course we can. But this debate is being conducted in code: Saying “I believe we ought to have healthcare for everyone” translates to, “We have to have a single-payer system. No other way is acceptable.”

Personally, I would build a health care system around Medical Savings Accounts. For those who just tuned in, you buy a cheap, high deductable catestrophic health policy, then save the deductable over the year, pre-tax. When you need medical treatment, you pay with a swipe card issued by the institution where you save, and when you run out, your catestrophic coverage kicks in.

Here are the advantages:

1. It eliminates paperwork (and in the present system, the cost of medical paperwork exceeds the cost of actual healthcare.)
2. You pay on the spot. Under the current system, the provider must wait months for his money – which is a cost to him.
3. You have incentive to bargain for health care – and with 1&2, above, the doctor has leeway to give you a good deal.
4. Unspent money rolls over into your IRA – so you have an incentive not to overconsume. (How often have you heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor. I pay the premiums, don’t I?”

Now, if you want an MSA, but don’t think you can afford it, you apply for assistance using your most recent income tax return. If you qualify for assistance, you are placed on a double sliding scale:

1. The first scale determines how much of your catestrophic coverage premium you pay, and how much you must save. The government pays some of your catestophic coverage premium and guarentees some of the money you must save.
2. The second scale determines how much of your money is paid to the provider, and how much assistance you get to make up the difference.
3. Every bill is paid with a mixture of your money and assistance money – so you always have an incentive to bargain and not to over-consume.

 

[pathia]

Yep – we could be like Canada, with a per-capita national debt greater than the United States (but without the United States’ international committments) and providing our citizens with the best medical technologies the 1970s had. We could see our doctors fleeing the country and setting up clinics over the border – and see desperate citizens driving thousands of miles to pay – out of their own pockets – for treatment the government is supposed to provide.

Actually the US is at about 30,000 per citizen while Canada is around 25,000 per citizen (In US dollars).

We surpassed them in the last decade or so.

 

[pathia]

Now, if you want an MSA, but don’t think you can afford it, you apply for assistance using your most recent income tax return. If you qualify for assistance, you are placed on a double sliding scale:

1. The first scale determines how much of your catestrophic coverage premium you pay, and how much you must save. The government pays some of your catestophic coverage premium and guarentees some of the money you must save.
2. The second scale determines how much of your money is paid to the provider, and how much assistance you get to make up the difference.
3. Every bill is paid with a mixture of your money and assistance money – so you always have an incentive to bargain and not to over-consume.

That’s far too sensible to actually ever get traction in Congress!

Still searching for insurance here, got another three rejection letters this week. Tried catastrophic plans, they’re a nogo too it seems as far as they’re concerned about me.

 

[mary_bobo]

Of course we can. But this debate is being conducted in code: Saying “I believe we ought to have healthcare for everyone” translates to, “We have to have a single-payer system. No other way is acceptable.”

Personally, I would build a health care system around Medical Savings Accounts. For those who just tuned in, you buy a cheap, high deductable catestrophic health policy, then save the deductable over the year, pre-tax. When you need medical treatment, you pay with a swipe card issued by the institution where you save, and when you run out, your catestrophic coverage kicks in.

Here are the advantages:

1. It eliminates paperwork (and in the present system, the cost of medical paperwork exceeds the cost of actual healthcare.)
2. You pay on the spot. Under the current system, the provider must wait months for his money – which is a cost to him.
3. You have incentive to bargain for health care – and with 1&2, above, the doctor has leeway to give you a good deal.
4. Unspent money rolls over into your IRA – so you have an incentive not to overconsume. (How often have you heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor. I pay the premiums, don’t I?”

Now, if you want an MSA, but don’t think you can afford it, you apply for assistance using your most recent income tax return. If you qualify for assistance, you are placed on a double sliding scale:

1. The first scale determines how much of your catestrophic coverage premium you pay, and how much you must save. The government pays some of your catestophic coverage premium and guarentees some of the money you must save.
2. The second scale determines how much of your money is paid to the provider, and how much assistance you get to make up the difference.
3. Every bill is paid with a mixture of your money and assistance money – so you always have an incentive to bargain and not to over-consume.

:clapping: MSA would be a good thing, I think. But there are those lawmakers who apparently think that the American people are not able to make those decisions for themselves and need the government to make them for them. What a pity.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

:clapping: MSA would be a good thing, I think. But there are those lawmakers who apparently think that the American people are not able to make those decisions for themselves and need the government to make them for them. What a pity.

I think Americans are accustomed to the government making choices for them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

:clapping: MSA would be a good thing, I think. But there are those lawmakers who apparently think that the American people are not able to make those decisions for themselves and need the government to make them for them. What a pity.

I talked about this while running for Congress in '04. At a political rally, I was followed by a Democrat who told the audience that I was “insulting their intelligence” by suggesting they could manage their own money.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I talked about this while running for Congress in '04. At a political rally, I was followed by a Democrat who told the audience that I was “insulting their intelligence” by suggesting they could manage their own money.

Did you win Vern? If not then it would seem that the people also thought they where to stupid to manage their own money!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Did you win Vern? If not then it would seem that the people also thought they where to stupid to manage their own money!

Demagoguery tops cold, logical discussion every time.

Actually, the audience was mostly Black and almost 100% Democrat. The county was the poorest of all the 3,000+ counties in the United States – and also one of the least literate.

 

[jman507]

I might add from an economic perspective, its not to hard to imagine a person out there thinking ok I have to make a decision between food, rent, and medical care. On a macro-scale the budget is also constrained too. The general GDP sets up a budget that has to supply the needs of food, shelter, medical care, education, security, infrastructure, and the such.

What we can vision what would be great on one front is going to have to be constrained to allow for the good of the general balance. You may have your particular bias, unfortunately you’ll still have to live with the problems that can creep up when you short that area you don’t care about. It’s much the same of the person that blows off his medical insurance to pay for other great ideas. It’s a risk, but if it falls though you in a lot of trouble.

So you say food, and shelter are rights. Perfectly fine, but now for the application on the budget. You have all these other areas to have to try to maintain, I think you might think it a bit much to think everyone should live in a mansion. Now for health care, what we can do is ever increasing. Eventually let’s say you must decided what should be done. Are you going to place a limit, or let it be free for all.

Eventually the cost is going to ever increase, and if it outplaces the growth of the GDP, it’s going to have to take away from other ares. Which do you propose food or shelter? How about the infrastructure, like education, roads, buildings, and research/development? Eventually you’ll medical care will eat up more and more of the budget, and your infrastructure will atrophy. Eventually that will take a toll on any ability to increase your GDP. Naturally you’ll have to place limits. Then the question is how do place those limits. So you might not have to decide between food and medical care, but it’s more a question to what degree. In that context how do you decide what a right to health care means as applied in a workable policy?

 

[goofyjim]

I think it is deplorable to play politics possibly with people’s lives. Everyone should get health care regardless of the ability to pay. Otherwise some might die because of the political correctness of the fiscally conservative.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think Americans are accustomed to the government making choices for them.

I think they want the government to make choices for them because they are lazy and too busy, busy to have to make those decisions for themselves. We have become a nation of sheep.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think it is deplorable to play politics possibly with people’s lives.

And you should stop doing it right away.

Everyone should get health care regardless of the ability to pay. Otherwise some might die because of the political correctness of the fiscally conservative.

And we should avoid a socialistic system. Otherwise some might die because of the lack of doctors and long waiting lists, like in Canada.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I think they want the government to make choices for them because they are lazy and too busy, busy to have to make those decisions for themselves. We have become a nation of sheep.

Please dont lump us all into that group!