"America's health care system is like a free market in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin"

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Hey that looks great!
isn't true, but it's funny

because i would so rather have the government decide what treatments i get rather than an insurance company... nah...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Hobsons choice is if the insurance company picks treatment or the practioner. Both government and private insurances are increasingly controlling the options. Single payor? That in no way addresses that issue. I really don't have Health Care Religion where I have faith in government (or anyone for that matter). I have to be shown something is superior before signing on.

Religion is always a nasty topic on the Internet.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well you can't edit properly with an ipod and FT. The Hobsons choice I meant to say is if it's a private plan or the govt. Neither is qualified to practice medicine

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Hey that looks great!
isn't true, but it's funny

Outlandish yes, and generally accurate IMO.

 

[senseamp]

Sounds like the chance of a "free market" healthcare system working are like what chances of Madonna staying a virgin were

 

[JohnnyGage]

Well we have to find some examples of free market health care and luckily we do. Lasik and plastic surgery; both industries have decreased costs and increased innovation through market competition--how many cardiologists do you know that give out their cell phone number? In both these industries it's practically required. Watch any plastic surgery show and see how different the care is from a hospital, you recover in a hotel basically.

The insurance industry itself is essentially like UHC, which again as Info and HR have said is nowhere near a free market. We as patients, don't care what a checkup costs because we have no incentive to find out. If we did spend our own money on things and did comparison shopping. If we had oil change insurance would I care how much my oil change was and do you think it would be cheaper? Hell no.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure where Obama is offering single payor as an option nor does it explain how single payor must provide superior care. As far as Rush and them I didn't pay much attention. The cartoon has a bias (nothing wrong with that automatically) but when doing so it fails to demonstrate its positive contentions. Then again its just a cartoon and doesn't have informational content. Its an old propaganda technique that even Galileo used.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Well we have to find some examples of free market health care and luckily we do. Lasik and plastic surgery; both industries have decreased costs and increased innovation through market competition--how many cardiologists do you know that give out their cell phone number? In both these industries it's practically required. Watch any plastic surgery show and see how different the care is from a hospital, you recover in a hotel basically.

The insurance industry itself is essentially like UHC, which again as Info and HR have said is nowhere near a free market. We as patients, don't care what a checkup costs because we have no incentive to find out. If we did spend our own money on things and did comparison shopping. If we had oil change insurance would I care how much my oil change was and do you think it would be cheaper? Hell no.

The two procedures you mentioned, Lasik and plastic surgery, are both ELECTIVE procedures. Yes, free market works for those, because the consumer is not under duress. And consumer has the cost/benefit information necessary to make decision.

It does not work for situation where the patient's only choices are paying for health care or dying. That's about as "free market" as an armed robbery. Also, if a doctor prescribes a procedure or medicine to a patient, the patient usually does not have the necessary information to make a cost/risk/benefit analysis of different options and has to rely on the doctor's judgment. If I go to doctor and he orders a test, under this "free market" system, am I supposed to say, nah, that's too expensive, give me an aspirin instead?
I do agree that current insurance system is not free market, so this "free market" status quo vs "socialist" universal coverage is a meaningless argument.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Hobsons choice is if the insurance company picks treatment or the practioner. Both government and private insurances are increasingly controlling the options. Single payor? That in no way addresses that issue. I really don't have Health Care Religion where I have faith in government (or anyone for that matter). I have to be shown something is superior before signing on.

Religion is always a nasty topic on the Internet.

What sort of evidence would you accept to show that a single payer option is superior? It seems like we have tons of examples from around the world that show it pretty clearly.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think Madonnas song was about taking an enormous cock. so I agree that seems to be the state of things

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's a fair question. To clarify my position I'm not saying that a single payor can't be superior. I'm saying that the assumption that a single payor system MUST be superior in terms of care. While there are many good systems in place the devil would be in the specifics of what is actually proposed. Think of it this way. If you were to commit to a business partnership you would not just want to know that your prospective associate has one well, but would want to know the details of the contract before signing on. That just makes good sense. Certainly health care is of comperable importance.

Simply it may be single payor but what specifically does that mean in terms of quality. That also seems a fair question.

 

[senseamp]

Nobody is saying Single Payer MUST be superior. That is a strawman. But we are seeing that it is superior in many ways in other Western countries, and it would be stupid not to learn from their experience.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Nobody is saying Single Payer MUST be superior. That is a strawman. But we are seeing that it is superior in many ways in other Western countries, and it would be stupid not to learn from their experience.

That is perfectly reasonable. My main objection is to a widely held attitude that the pending legislation must be superior to the current system. In terms of providing coverage that is true, however we haven't a clue as to what that means in terms of overall quality.

Certainly private insurance has real issues, but I've not concentrated on those so much simply because that's not what has been emphasized. In my practical experience private vs government is a great deal like a headache on the left side vs. right. Simply choosing a side won't make it better.

One thing that has not been brought up is that the systems in place elsewhere may work well, but is that the only option? Is it possible that there is yet a better option than what has been suggested? I'm not saying that it's so, but as usual we have come down with two sides being the only possibilities.

My main thrust has been to disregard the politicos and have people who do nothing but participate directly in providing care and dealing with the finances of health care explore the options. If the Dems genuinely want the best possible care, then it's going to be harder to argue with that approach than launching a thousand pages with little time to absorb them in an attempt to foil the Republicans.

Have professionals craft the package, and it will sell itself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Nobody is saying Single Payer MUST be superior. That is a strawman. But we are seeing that it is superior in many ways in other Western countries, and it would be stupid not to learn from their experience.

That is perfectly reasonable. My main objection is to a widely held attitude that the pending legislation must be superior to the current system. In terms of providing more people some coverage that is true, however we haven't a clue as to what that means in terms of overall quality.

Certainly private insurance has real issues, but I've not concentrated on those so much simply because that's not what has been emphasized. In my practical experience private vs government is a great deal like a headache on the left side vs. right. Simply choosing a side won't make it better.

One thing that has not been brought up is that the systems in place elsewhere may work well, but is that the only option? Is it possible that there is yet a better option than what has been suggested? I'm not saying that it's so, but as usual we have come down with two sides being the only possibilities.

My main thrust has been to disregard the politicos and have people who do nothing but participate directly in providing care and dealing with the finances of health care explore the options. If the Dems genuinely want the best possible care, then it's going to be harder to argue with that approach than launching a thousand pages with little time to absorb them in an attempt to foil the Republicans.

Have professionals craft the package, and it will sell itself.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Well we have to find some examples of free market health care and luckily we do. Lasik and plastic surgery; both industries have decreased costs and increased innovation through market competition--how many cardiologists do you know that give out their cell phone number? In both these industries it's practically required. Watch any plastic surgery show and see how different the care is from a hospital, you recover in a hotel basically.

The insurance industry itself is essentially like UHC, which again as Info and HR have said is nowhere near a free market. We as patients, don't care what a checkup costs because we have no incentive to find out. If we did spend our own money on things and did comparison shopping. If we had oil change insurance would I care how much my oil change was and do you think it would be cheaper? Hell no.

The two procedures you mentioned, Lasik and plastic surgery, are both ELECTIVE procedures. Yes, free market works for those, because the consumer is not under duress. And consumer has the cost/benefit information necessary to make decision.

It does not work for situation where the patient's only choices are paying for health care or dying. That's about as "free market" as an armed robbery. Also, if a doctor prescribes a procedure or medicine to a patient, the patient usually does not have the necessary information to make a cost/risk/benefit analysis of different options and has to rely on the doctor's judgment. If I go to doctor and he orders a test, under this "free market" system, am I supposed to say, nah, that's too expensive, give me an aspirin instead?
I do agree that current insurance system is not free market, so this "free market" status quo vs "socialist" universal coverage is a meaningless argument.

The section in bold is what's going on in UHC right now. Want an MRI, sure free as the air--but come back in six months. So go take an aspirin for your sore knee and we'll see what happens. Not something that will fly here in the US of A.

Also, just because we are arguing against Obamacare and UHC doesn't mean we think the present system is all that and a spool of thread.

True both are elective, but do you want to see better or wear glasses? Having the option is keeping things competitive and efficient. The paying for health care or dying isn't really a question, meaning--that all of us in that situation would opt to pay(yes I know about the bankruptcies and such. As one person from Canada put it on the Stossel special when she came here for care "profits, who cares--I'm alive". That's why catastrophic coverage would do well here. I mean what's the percentage of someone being in the ICU longer than a week? Probably less than 10% or thereabouts. As far as medicine is concerned you are seeing free market exchange right now with Wal-Mart and Walgreen pratically giving generics away for 4 and 5 dollars each respectively.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Well we have to find some examples of free market health care and luckily we do. Lasik and plastic surgery; both industries have decreased costs and increased innovation through market competition--how many cardiologists do you know that give out their cell phone number? In both these industries it's practically required. Watch any plastic surgery show and see how different the care is from a hospital, you recover in a hotel basically.

The insurance industry itself is essentially like UHC, which again as Info and HR have said is nowhere near a free market. We as patients, don't care what a checkup costs because we have no incentive to find out. If we did spend our own money on things and did comparison shopping. If we had oil change insurance would I care how much my oil change was and do you think it would be cheaper? Hell no.

The two procedures you mentioned, Lasik and plastic surgery, are both ELECTIVE procedures. Yes, free market works for those, because the consumer is not under duress. And consumer has the cost/benefit information necessary to make decision.

But there are significant number of things that a paitent can do when not under duress and the market works well for those. And typically when a patient is under such duress, that is when catastrophic insurance kicks in and that is an inexpensive option.

It does not work for situation where the patient's only choices are paying for health care or dying. That's about as "free market" as an armed robbery. Also, if a doctor prescribes a procedure or medicine to a patient, the patient usually does not have the necessary information to make a cost/risk/benefit analysis of different options and has to rely on the doctor's judgment. If I go to doctor and he orders a test, under this "free market" system, am I supposed to say, nah, that's too expensive, give me an aspirin instead?

That depends upon the test and how quickly it needs to be done. But once again, if you are under duress, that is what catastrophic insurance is for.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Well we have to find some examples of free market health care and luckily we do. Lasik and plastic surgery; both industries have decreased costs and increased innovation through market competition--how many cardiologists do you know that give out their cell phone number? In both these industries it's practically required. Watch any plastic surgery show and see how different the care is from a hospital, you recover in a hotel basically.

The insurance industry itself is essentially like UHC, which again as Info and HR have said is nowhere near a free market. We as patients, don't care what a checkup costs because we have no incentive to find out. If we did spend our own money on things and did comparison shopping. If we had oil change insurance would I care how much my oil change was and do you think it would be cheaper? Hell no.

The two procedures you mentioned, Lasik and plastic surgery, are both ELECTIVE procedures. Yes, free market works for those, because the consumer is not under duress. And consumer has the cost/benefit information necessary to make decision.

It does not work for situation where the patient's only choices are paying for health care or dying. That's about as "free market" as an armed robbery. Also, if a doctor prescribes a procedure or medicine to a patient, the patient usually does not have the necessary information to make a cost/risk/benefit analysis of different options and has to rely on the doctor's judgment. If I go to doctor and he orders a test, under this "free market" system, am I supposed to say, nah, that's too expensive, give me an aspirin instead?
I do agree that current insurance system is not free market, so this "free market" status quo vs "socialist" universal coverage is a meaningless argument.

The section in bold is what's going on in UHC right now. Want an MRI, sure free as the air--but come back in six months. So go take an aspirin for your sore knee and we'll see what happens. Not something that will fly here in the US of A.

Also, just because we are arguing against Obamacare and UHC doesn't mean we think the present system is all that and a spool of thread.

True both are elective, but do you want to see better or wear glasses? Having the option is keeping things competitive and efficient. The paying for health care or dying isn't really a question, meaning--that all of us in that situation would opt to pay(yes I know about the bankruptcies and such. As one person from Canada put it on the Stossel special when she came here for care "profits, who cares--I'm alive". That's why catastrophic coverage would do well here. I mean what's the percentage of someone being in the ICU longer than a week? Probably less than 10% or thereabouts. As far as medicine is concerned you are seeing free market exchange right now with Wal-Mart and Walgreen pratically giving generics away for 4 and 5 dollars each respectively.

Edit:BTW, just about everything in health care is elective.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Well we have to find some examples of free market health care and luckily we do. Lasik and plastic surgery; both industries have decreased costs and increased innovation through market competition--how many cardiologists do you know that give out their cell phone number? In both these industries it's practically required. Watch any plastic surgery show and see how different the care is from a hospital, you recover in a hotel basically.

The insurance industry itself is essentially like UHC, which again as Info and HR have said is nowhere near a free market. We as patients, don't care what a checkup costs because we have no incentive to find out. If we did spend our own money on things and did comparison shopping. If we had oil change insurance would I care how much my oil change was and do you think it would be cheaper? Hell no.

The two procedures you mentioned, Lasik and plastic surgery, are both ELECTIVE procedures. Yes, free market works for those, because the consumer is not under duress. And consumer has the cost/benefit information necessary to make decision.

It does not work for situation where the patient's only choices are paying for health care or dying. That's about as "free market" as an armed robbery. Also, if a doctor prescribes a procedure or medicine to a patient, the patient usually does not have the necessary information to make a cost/risk/benefit analysis of different options and has to rely on the doctor's judgment. If I go to doctor and he orders a test, under this "free market" system, am I supposed to say, nah, that's too expensive, give me an aspirin instead?
I do agree that current insurance system is not free market, so this "free market" status quo vs "socialist" universal coverage is a meaningless argument.

The section in bold is what's going on in UHC right now. Want an MRI, sure free as the air--but come back in six months. So go take an aspirin for your sore knee and we'll see what happens. Not something that will fly here in the US of A.

Also, just because we are arguing against Obamacare and UHC doesn't mean we think the present system is all that and a spool of thread.

True both are elective, but do you want to see better or wear glasses? Having the option is keeping things competitive and efficient. The paying for health care or dying isn't really a question, meaning--that all of us in that situation would opt to pay(yes I know about the bankruptcies and such. As one person from Canada put it on the Stossel special when she came here for care "profits, who cares--I'm alive". That's why catastrophic coverage would do well here. I mean what's the percentage of someone being in the ICU longer than a week? Probably less than 10% or thereabouts. As far as medicine is concerned you are seeing free market exchange right now with Wal-Mart and Walgreen pratically giving generics away for 4 and 5 dollars each respectively.

Edit:BTW, just about everything in health care is elective.

Everything is elective if you don't mind early death.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Edit:BTW, just about everything in health care is elective.

Everything is elective if you don't mind early death.

wow that coming from a doctor. jeez

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
That's actually a surprisingly good article. No matter what system we set up - single payer, private option, public option etc etc, the bottom line is that in order to be successful, we must figure out how to control the actual cost, not just who is paying for it and how.

Unless you have limitless resources available to pay, at some point there has to be "rationing" of care. I'd personally rather have the patient (you and I) make the rationing decisions than have those decisions made by a bureaucrat. In order for that to happen, there has to be a direct connection between your choices as a patient and the impact to your wallet.

How dare you post on-topic to the article! :|

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Evan
Medicare and Medicaid do not significantly alter private insurers' healthcare policies. The U.S. has by far the most free market healthcare system in the world of the industrialized countries and it isn't even close.

I agree. It's a doctor's choice to accept a medicare/aid patient. It's a doctor's choice to accept a patient using insurance. (A growing number are going cash only) In short, a doctor's practice is his business to run as he sees fit.

We have a free market system. What is sitting in front of congress is the opposite of that.

You 2 are delusional. What we have right now is anything BUT a free market system.

It is market-based, yes, but so is what's sitting in front of Congress. Neither, however, are free market options. It is not freedom to be free to pace back and forth inside a cage.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
That's actually a surprisingly good article. No matter what system we set up - single payer, private option, public option etc etc, the bottom line is that in order to be successful, we must figure out how to control the actual cost, not just who is paying for it and how.

Unless you have limitless resources available to pay, at some point there has to be "rationing" of care. I'd personally rather have the patient (you and I) make the rationing decisions than have those decisions made by a bureaucrat. In order for that to happen, there has to be a direct connection between your choices as a patient and the impact to your wallet.

How dare you post on-topic to the article! :|

But that brings up a point. As it is right now, it is possible to "upgrade" my coverage at my expense, so that the point where I am "rationed" is higher. Are we looking at a system where we must all accept the lowest common denominator out of "fairness"? If so, then there ought to be no exceptions for politicians (Dems as well as Reps) who will set themselves above the rest of us as they are indeed doing now. A bill which would compel them to accept whatever they force on us won't pass. That's not reassuring.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Everything is elective if you don't mind early death.

Define what you mean by 'early' death.

Yaknow, it's quite disturbing to me how many people look at medicine as a kind of religion, something that will save them from their sins and grant them immortality. It can't and it won't. I suggest you get a grip and come to terms with your mortality.

 

[sportage]

Once again...


The government ran us post office does very well. A fantastic job!
Stamps are still cheap, and they still deliver to everyones doorstep.
Not bad. The fed gov owns the buildings, trucks, machines. A slick system,
all ran by the fed government.

Then consider our fed tax system. Yeah we hate taxes, but the fed gov does a pretty
efficient job of collecting taxes. Right out of your pay, before you get your hands on it (your paycheck).

Look at the military. Again a great system. Only when, as in the Iraq war, went outside independent nongovernmental outsourcing was done, did we see corruption, missing money-funds, failure to protect, basically a total corrupt mess. But as long at it remained total us gov military, we did very well.

So here comes healthcare.
The problem is exactly the reverse of what Reagan warned about.
What we need for a successful government ran healthcare system is to totally and completely remove any and all private involvement. Let the us government run it all from A thru Z.
THEN, we'd see a workable, fair, cost effective successful system.

Its the private sector that has, and now is hard at screwing up the healthcare system.
Waste, corruption, high costs, profits, and on and on.
Not to mention the corruption involving our us congress.
Turning them into thieves, rooks, and bidding do-ers for the industry, and not doing
the peoples work they were elected to do.

Why Obama doesn't approach healthcare reform from that angle is beyond me.
Yeah, maybe doctors would be paid just and fair for their work thru a total government
healthcare system, but where did it come in that doctors should be paid like rock stars?

A totally government ran healthcare system, including medicare, medicade, everything would resolve the US healthcare problem. And like the us post office, run like a fine tuned clock.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: sportage
Once again...

The problem is that you don't have any proof that private industry couldn't do mail better. And you could use your reasoning to argue that all industries should be government-run.