ExRx.net

The healthcare system in Canada sounds pretty good. Here in the US we have skyrocketing costs for two reasons. 1 "free riders" that get a free ride more or less, but only emergency stuff. 2 Health insurance companies and their massive profits.
So a non-profit insurance that people could pay into would be nice, it doesn't have to be government run, but that's likely the only way it could happen. Then we get the "free riders" on the system, so they can get preventative care, in order to make their free ride cheaper. We also make those than can pay a little, pay what little they can.

People take issue with being forced to pay into such a system or buy insurance. They act like it's some libertarian issue, but it's not. You don't get a right to something that infringes on others. So there should be no right to opt out of healthcare. Because if something happens, we get put in the nasty dilemma of either pay through the nose, or let the person die where they drop, which may involve a great deal of suffering while said person waits to die. That is just not right, and I think we have a right not to be forced into that situation. Secondly people who go without vaccines and treatment spread disease; they are a health hazard. I have a right to not be subjected to their infections. Such infections can be fatal to some, especially infants who are too young to be vaccinated, or develop an immunity.

I actually like what you propose Ironman, but without the mandated part of everyone having to buy insurance. You either contribute something or you don't get treated or rely on the generosity of gifts give freely - and you can't say that doesn't occur. All I have to do is point out our good Jungledoc admin. On the same side, I have no problem with someone paying more for receiving more. If you want just emergency care service - you pay for it. If you want all the bells and whistles - you pay for it. I have no problem with a for profit hospital refusing care for someone who can't pay. I also have no problem with a for profit hospital giving care away in exchange for litigation immunity and charity.

Health care is not a right. If we want to make it a right - change the constitution.

_________________
Thanks TimD.

Costs are starting to get high. Not much different than the US or other countries but It's a big part of the budget. I don't think there is enough emphasis on prevention. Healthcare is a provincial responsibility and some provinces are leaning forward more than others. BC and Alberta are more progressive, probably because they can afford the up front costs. The emphasis needs to be on individual responsibility vs screening.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

my spirit is with Hoose on this. My brain sees another angle. Some folks get the short end of the stick. Sometimes you work hard and you just can't afford as much as the next guy That's life. And again, I'm ok with that..that doesnt mean they get to take my money. But....

One thing about HealthCare, in additon to the fact that it's so emotional to "Deny Care"; from an Acturial pov, it's so skewed to the right (big tail, not politically).
I mean, you have these Cancer cases that get into the hundreds of thousands, easy.
While most of us pay HealthCare prems way above what we'll use.
I think thats why compliance to pay-in from everyone is poor. One needs to see the positive utility of money, and most do not for HC Prems, unless supported heavily by employers. Even then, I *think* I pay too much. But I'm theoretically paying for my mom (lung cancer) and my sis (two open heart surgeries before age 25)... and of course "just in case".
Car ins is more easily matched to the indv car and risk. So it makes sense to everyone. We dont fuss much about it.

But back to my heart, if we lived more by the creed "He who does not work, shall not eat". some stuff would change quick like.

Hoosegow,

The problem with that is some of the untreated would spread disease. It also puts people in a very uncomfortable position is some situations, you either absorb the cost like we do now, or you have to live with leaving them to suffer and die on their own. All that because the person wants to shirk responsibility. Their "fist swinging" is not "stopping at my nose" so to speak.




I agree. I still think people should have assistance as required reaching a certain minimal standard of loving. But yea, some people will have a whole hell of a lot more than others, and that's the just the way it is.


Absolutely. That how it works. No matter what you are both lucky and unlucky. If you have serious health problems you are lucky because you get care, but still unlucky in general. If you don't have health issues, you were covered in case you did, and lucked out by being healthy. You were just "unlucky" because you didn't get much for your money.

So whoever has problems gets helped, and that someone could be you.



It sure would, but not in the way you think. There would be only the tiniest increase in work, and whole lot less eating.



That said, I would have more sympathy with that point of view if it were not for the redistribution of labor, and what is basically price fixing on labor. If there was actually a free market some of these conservative ideas might be alright, or at least MUCH less negative. The problem is the deregulation done in the name of "free market" is ironically what has destroyed the free market. When it's rigged to benefit certain people, the losses of some are socialized, there exist monopolies or near monopolies, we allow redistribution and price fixing of labor, there is tax incentive to make money out of thin air through financial product manipulation, higher tax on labor, and various other issues, there is no free market.


A free market geared towards demand-side economics (ie reality), would greatly reduce the need for liberal/socialist income-side manipulation, and social programs, which the right find so distasteful. The problem is the folks who own the market, own the government, and they have no intention of giving it back.

It's kind of funny to see the left for the ideas I am talking about, and the right against it, considering this was originally a conservative viewpoint. But it's old school Goldwater-style conservatism, which is the antithesis of neoconservatism. Now it's conservative to be for government subsidies when it used to be conservative to be against them. It would be the perfect time to get cooperation from the left, as it's no longer an even split between federalist and antifederalists; nearly all of us are decidedly antifederalist now, at least in the way that liberalism can be antifederalist that is.

I think you're right. It makes a huge difference too. That's why insurance companies here make preventative care and wellness appointments free. It's an investment with amazing returns in cost savings. Some of them are offering birth control for free now too, provided you get the generic, because it is exponentially cheaper than a pregnancy.

Much of that is related to screenings which generate revenue through unnecessary treatments. I don't really trust the motivation of the insurance companies. It seems like scientists are starting to question certain screens like prostate test, colonoscopies to look for colon cancer for symptom free people and mastectomies. The false positives create a great deal of stress and unnecessary invasive procedures and apparently don't prevent as much suffering as they can cause.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Yes, unneeded tests are another problem. There are plenty of tests that drive up costs and provide no benefit. I'd be fine with cutting some of that, provided it is doctors making the decisions. It is true that sometimes the insurance companies are in cahoots with hospitals and drug companies.

http://www.khanacademy.org/science/heal ... -vs-europe

Does this have any merit? That healthcare in the U.S. has a lot to do with technology as well?

Also don't the Swiss have healthcare through insurance?

My current doctor, Dr. David Belk, MD who has recently received exposure from the LA Times, suggests health care costs are very poorly understood for various interesting reasons. He cites that technology has been attributed to the raising cost of health care, but most technology based tests are, in fact, actually very inexpensive to perform, contrary to popular belief.
http://youtu.be/xcLXzWeherI (Starts at 25:30)

It's interesting to mention that Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, points out that 75% of health care cost in the US are now due to the metabolic syndrome, which are largely preventable through exercise and or diet:
http://exrx.net/People/Lustig/Obesity.html (Starts at 8:45)

mind
blown

Yea, metabolic syndrome is yet another big problem. It's hard to figure out what to do, because on the one hand you can't really tell people what to eat, but at the same time their medical costs are breaking the bank. If insurance companies have to pay for that, you better believe it gets passed on in higher premiums.

It kind of sucks knowing that maybe as much as half of my health insurance payroll deduction is because most people can't stop compulsively shoveling junk food into their mouths like a grazing animal.

Those that are sick of health care premiums should all band together and present a unified group that...

Individually maintains our own insurance/savings account with our banks.
Individually negotiates health care provider payments through a group recognized spreadsheet.
The group legalities managed by annually elected members of the group.
Members of the group are only allowed in if they have the amount in the savings/insurance account appropriate to provide for medium level health care costs.
If the members savings/insurance account drops below that recommended level, their membership is briefly put on suspension until they get it back up to standard.
The money saved remains in the hands of the individual, can collect interest in the benefit of the individual in whatever way they wish to invest as long as the money is quickly available to pay health care bills.
A small percentage from each account is donated to the group to compensate the annually elected members for their time. Possibly also to assist in paying for some of those really astronomical medical procedures that people within the group may have.

Sort of like some states allow people to do with car insurance as long as they have the appropriate savings account.

I have a similar feeling about deadbeats and my contributions to the welfare/foodstamps/etc programs.

I think it would be a good idea to prorate Group Healthcare premiums based on.... well ... . I'm not sure (genetics? behavors? Currently prescribed health markers? Utilization?) I like the idea of higher deductible plans with a Tax Deferred Health Savings Account component. Those that require more care will need to dip into that account, healthier folks can just use it after age 65 for kicks.

Again, based on the fat tail to the right, society will always make a choice between the median subsidzing the extremes, or getting to the point where we say "No, you don't get to have the procedure. You should have stopped smoking / you lived long enough / you have diabetes and someone else needs your femur."

That's like comparing an ocean to a mud puddle. Not to mention many of those programs go to people who work full time, the main exception being the program referred to by many as "welfare". It's a very small portion of the budget, and it's not like the children in those families can do anything about their situation. There is a lot mental illness involved too. The deadbeats are more of an exception rather than a rule.