Rationing Health Care

[chuck34]

During the health care debate we all heard that there won't be any rationing of care under Obama's plan. Anyone still believe that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care_appointment

"President Barack Obama bypassed the Senate Wednesday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor and patient care specialist, to run Medicare and Medicaid."

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."



I'm sure some will take up the argument about "insurance companies do it already, what's the big deal". Well, when a company does it you have options, appeals, other companies, etc. But when it's the government, that's the end of the road, no where else to turn, you're done. But we don't have death panels, right?

[Mark in Oshawa]

During the health care debate we all heard that there won't be any rationing of care under Obama's plan. Anyone still believe that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care_appointment

"President Barack Obama bypassed the Senate Wednesday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor and patient care specialist, to run Medicare and Medicaid."

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."



I'm sure some will take up the argument about "insurance companies do it already, what's the big deal". Well, when a company does it you have options, appeals, other companies, etc. But when it's the government, that's the end of the road, no where else to turn, you're done. But we don't have death panels, right?

Well that is the reality isn't it? People shafted by one HMO after another still have more ones to go to. If the Government does it, those affected have no other choices.

As healthcare costs have rocketed up here, the amount of stuff covered up here is changing and I hear of people being sent home just hours after major surgery to save on recovery costs. It is NUTS....

[Rollo]

During the health care debate we all heard that there won't be any rationing of care under Obama's plan. Anyone still believe that?


I do believe that there will be rationing of care in America, but mainly because as a nation you are incompotent at running government services.
The fact that a public healthcare system works well in other nations is largely irrelevant, simply because the American way of doing things is riddled with pork barreling and corruption.

[chuck34]

I do believe that there will be rationing of care in America, but mainly because as a nation you are incompotent at running government services.
The fact that a public healthcare system works well in other nations is largely irrelevant, simply because the American way of doing things is riddled with pork barreling and corruption.

All great reasons not to nationalise the helathcare industry.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm sure some will take up the argument about "insurance companies do it already, what's the big deal". Well, when a company does it you have options, appeals, other companies, etc. But when it's the government, that's the end of the road, no where else to turn, you're done. But we don't have death panels, right?

My health insurance company has refused to pay the bills related to my recent hospitalization. It seems that by not listing a condition that I had when I was 5 years old (which I didn't remember having - I also can't tell you exactly how tall I was or how much I weighed at the age of 5 either), that gave them the "right" to refuse coverage... but keep the premiums that I have paid. So please explain these options in further detail. I've already spoken to my attorney. Here are my options: either pay the bills myself (which I have already done) and sue them to get the money back (which will involve several thousand more dollars UP FRONT to the attorney and a cancellation of the existing policy) OR suck it up and just file some complaints with my Congressman and to the insurance commission in my state (which will accomplish nothing). If you know of something more, that this attorney doesn't know about, I'm open to all ideas. Seriously. But hospitals and doctors don't wait around for you to appeal insurance decisions. I've worked VERY hard and lived pretty responsibly over my lifetime to achieve a high credit score. My side business depends on me being able to borrow money at the lowest rates possible. And getting a FICO ding because of a collection agency really doesn't interest me.

And you most certainly cannot get health insurance with another company for an illness which you are currently suffering from. Not one of them is going to insure you for that; it's considered a pre-existing condition. At best, they will be happy to take your money and sign you up to a junk policy, and then you MAY be able to get the condition covered if you don't have a relapse over the next 12-18 months. I know, because I explored that "option" too. You have the same basic "options" with Medicare and Medicaid that you'll have with a private company. Because both of them are insurance - you still go to private doctors and hospitals. Only under the VA or an HMO will you be "forced" to stay in a certain facility. But under any sort of coverage in the U.S., if you have enough money to cover a treatment yourself, you can get any sort of care that you choose to get, whether you have Medicare, Medicaid or Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

[Jag_Warrior]

Well that is the reality isn't it? People shafted by one HMO after another still have more ones to go to. If the Government does it, those affected have no other choices.

I'll look forward to company names and phone numbers for these "other HMO's" from you too. If I could get them this evening, that would help. I had one procedure yesterday and I have another tomorrow and possibly some next week. Even if they can't hook me up for the one yesterday, will these "other HMO's'" cover me for tomorrow and next week?

It sounds like a great deal. So don't you guys leave me hangin'.

[Rollo]

I suffered an Anterior Cruciate Ligament injury after tackling a chap in the 6 yard box. He fell down on top of me and landed rather heavily on my right leg.

I ended up waiting 12 weeks from the initial consultation until I was operated on, but because I'm only 31 and this was not a critical surgery, that's probably quite reasonable.

The total end cost to me as a patient was ZERO.

Because I live in Australia, although we complain about our healthcare system (because we have a democratic right to do so, and because we also have the right to demand the best), the truth is that the system is for the most part perfectly fine.

[Jag_Warrior]

I suffered an Anterior Cruciate Ligament injury after tackling a chap in the 6 yard box. He fell down on top of me and landed rather heavily on my right leg.

I ended up waiting 12 weeks from the initial consultation until I was operated on, but because I'm only 31 and this was not a critical surgery, that's probably quite reasonable.

The total end cost to me as a patient was ZERO.

Because I live in Australia, although we complain about our healthcare system (because we have a democratic right to do so, and because we also have the right to demand the best), the truth is that the system is for the most part perfectly fine.

If you had wanted to get the operation earlier, could you have paid for it yourself?

[Rollo]

Probably, but why bother? The full recovery time either way is about 6-8 months and even then there's not a complete guarantee that it's going to be 100% successful because of the nature of the injury.

[Jag_Warrior]

Probably, but why bother? The full recovery time either way is about 6-8 months and even then there's not a complete guarantee that it's going to be 100% successful because of the nature of the injury.

I understand. I'm just pointing out that even under your socialist/communist/Chairman Mao system, you still seem to have about the same options as we have under our capitalism/God/apple pie (don't get sick, but if you do... die quick) system: abide by the rules of the insurance scheme... or pay for it yourself.

Of course here in the good ol' U.S of A, we'd need to ask you a few questions first. Now, Mr. Rollo... are you sure that you didn't have a bum leg BEFORE this accident?! Hmm? We have documented proof that when you were 2, you twisted your knee. So... why didn't you list that when you applied for this policy, Mr. Rollo?! DE-NIED!!! Just be happy that we don't cancel your policy altogether... cause once you get canceled, you wouldn't be able to get insurance anywhere else. DENIED! :mad: Now pay your premium and go away!

[Rollo]

I would rather be treated in our "socialist/communist/Chairman Mao system", than totally denied "capitalism/God/apple pie (don't get sick, but if you do... die quick) system". Surely it's the results which matter?

If you can be denied healthcare at all, then that is a systemic failure of the system.

[Jag_Warrior]

I would rather be treated in our "socialist/communist/Chairman Mao system", than totally denied "capitalism/God/apple pie (don't get sick, but if you do... die quick) system". Surely it's the results which matter?

If you can be denied healthcare at all, then that is a systemic failure of the system.

No! No! No! You just think that's what you want. What fun is there in that?! What I'm going through is LOTS of fun. I go to the doctor, his office gets an approval from my insurance company, and it's a 50/50 (at best) as to whether or not they'll pay the bill as expected. They might (eventually) pay the 80%. They might pay 50%. Or they might not pay anything. It's like a trip to Vegas, only with stethoscopes and X-ray machines. Doesn't that sound like fun?

I'm hoping that when they repeal this Chairman Mao healthcare bill next year, they also dissolve Medicare and Medicaid. And kill the VA too! Only when we've rid ourselves of every vestige of socialism can we live free and proud in this great nation.

BTW guys, I'm still waiting for the names and numbers of the insurance companies that will happily pick me up.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I do believe that there will be rationing of care in America, but mainly because as a nation you are incompotent at running government services.
The fact that a public healthcare system works well in other nations is largely irrelevant, simply because the American way of doing things is riddled with pork barreling and corruption.

That might be a very valid point.

That said, The Canadian civil service is for the most part not corrupt at all , and most of the provinces maybe less so, but our healthcare costs are just out of control. When half of the provincial budget is for healthcare, and is growing by 9 percent a year some years, it is distressing. Especially when one considers the provinces provide and legislate education, road infrastructure, Natural resource protection, tourism and law enforcement.

It isnt that the public healthcare model did a horrible job in Canada, on the contrary I think we made it work pretty well, and the only flaw I see besides the absurd cost is that there is no private opting out of it.

The real issue tho is as Chuck has described. Why should a government ****er dictate what services in healthcare you are entitled to? Especially when the politicians seem to have another package altogether more generous, and in Canada there is no private option officially allowed.....

[chuck34]

Jag, I am truly sorry for your situation. But please explain to me why the whole healthcare system needs to be taken over to fix it? Why couldn't we have just enacted common sence legislation to eliminate the pre-existing nonsence like what you have just described? I don't think that anyone would be against that.

Again, I sympathise with your situation, and I think the company doing it to you is just stupid to do it. Perhaps you should start publicizing your situation so that it will either embarass the company enough to fix your situation, or at least others will be informed not to use their services. But by having the whole system taken over by the Feds will just substitute your crappy situation for others. I tend to think we should work on the issues with the current system rather than toss it out completely for a totally different system with a whole nother set of dumb issues and "special" situations.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, I am truly sorry for your situation. But please explain to me why the whole healthcare system needs to be taken over to fix it? Why couldn't we have just enacted common sence legislation to eliminate the pre-existing nonsence like what you have just described? I don't think that anyone would be against that.

Again, I sympathise with your situation, and I think the company doing it to you is just stupid to do it. Perhaps you should start publicizing your situation so that it will either embarass the company enough to fix your situation, or at least others will be informed not to use their services. But by having the whole system taken over by the Feds will just substitute your crappy situation for others. I tend to think we should work on the issues with the current system rather than toss it out completely for a totally different system with a whole nother set of dumb issues and "special" situations.

I appreciate that, Chuck. When I debate you guys, I usually enjoy it because I do respect you fellows as good people... whether we agree or disagree.

I actually think the company is VERY smart to do this. I don't see it as being stupid at all. They haven't figured it out in two months. So until more tests are run and those results come back, no one has any idea what's really wrong with me. It could be something relatively minor or it could be something pretty major. I've actually been very fortunate to have never really been sick - oh well, there was that time when I was 5 frickin' years old! But if something is VERY wrong with me, they've (maybe) done a pretty decent job of establishing a precedent as to why they shouldn't have to pay. They're protecting their profits (and their shareholders). I've never been under the illusion that an insurance company is out to protect me. Some people fear the government and trust that private enterprises will do right by them. Like Thomas Jefferson, I do not trust either one. One is driven by a lust for power and one is driven by a lust for profits. These people don't know me from Adam. It's nothing personal. It's about the $. Companies generally aren't moral or immoral. They're basically amoral. But you don't take money out of my pocket without getting your fingers bruised or broken. So this isn't going to end exactly as they might believe.

It's too bad that the two sides could not have worked this through and arrived at a better bill. I agree with that. But too much time was spent dealing with hyperbole, exaggerations and utter foolishness. The really unfortunate part is that this bill is just an insurance reform measure... and it very well may have some unpleasant, unintended consequences. Worse than what we have now, or what we'd have with no bill? I can't say. And neither can anyone else at this point. For people like me (now), it will certainly be better. As soon as I read it, I called my gal pal and told her that I now had a firmer retirement date... though this was before I got sick. But the bill really doesn't do much to attack costs. With or without this bill, I see every indication that health care costs will continue to rise at a rate much higher than the CPI. With or without this bill, that's going to hurt us going forward.

But the "other insurance options" that you and Mark believed were there, they don't exist. They will, in part, over the next few years. But not now... unless you are a pregnant female. Why would I cancel this policy and wind up with an even worse policy with some other bunch of shysters? And I can also tell you and any other Americans on here: "open enrollment" doesn't always mean what you think it means. How many people know (REALLY KNOW) what's in their insurance policies... health, auto, life, etc.? If you ever get really sick, and I hope that you don't, you'll quickly learn a LOT about the fine points of the health insurance market. I think I'm pretty good with banking, real estate and manufacturing. Before this is over with, hell, I might have a new industry sector that I can work in.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I appreciate that, Chuck. When I debate you guys, I usually enjoy it because I do respect you fellows as good people... whether we agree or disagree.

I actually think the company is VERY smart to do this. I don't see it as being stupid at all. They haven't figured it out in two months. So until more tests are run and those results come back, no one has any idea what's really wrong with me. It could be something relatively minor or it could be something pretty major. I've actually been very fortunate to have never really been sick - oh well, there was that time when I was 5 frickin' years old! But if something is VERY wrong with me, they've (maybe) done a pretty decent job of establishing a precedent as to why they shouldn't have to pay. They're protecting their profits (and their shareholders). I've never been under the illusion that an insurance company is out to protect me. Some people fear the government and trust that private enterprises will do right by them. Like Thomas Jefferson, I do not trust either one. One is driven by a lust for power and one is driven by a lust for profits. These people don't know me from Adam. It's nothing personal. It's about the $. Companies generally aren't moral or immoral. They're basically amoral. But you don't take money out of my pocket without getting your fingers bruised or broken. So this isn't going to end exactly as they might believe.

It's too bad that the two sides could not have worked this through and arrived at a better bill. I agree with that. But too much time was spent dealing with hyperbole, exaggerations and utter foolishness. The really unfortunate part is that this bill is just an insurance reform measure... and it very well may have some unpleasant, unintended consequences. Worse than what we have now, or what we'd have with no bill? I can't say. And neither can anyone else at this point. For people like me (now), it will certainly be better. As soon as I read it, I called my gal pal and told her that I now had a firmer retirement date... though this was before I got sick. But the bill really doesn't do much to attack costs. With or without this bill, I see every indication that health care costs will continue to rise at a rate much higher than the CPI. With or without this bill, that's going to hurt us going forward.

But the "other insurance options" that you and Mark believed were there, they don't exist. They will, in part, over the next few years. But not now... unless you are a pregnant female. Why would I cancel this policy and wind up with an even worse policy with some other bunch of shysters? And I can also tell you and any other Americans on here: "open enrollment" doesn't always mean what you think it means. How many people know (REALLY KNOW) what's in their insurance policies... health, auto, life, etc.? If you ever get really sick, and I hope that you don't, you'll quickly learn a LOT about the fine points of the health insurance market. I think I'm pretty good with banking, real estate and manufacturing. Before this is over with, hell, I might have a new industry sector that I can work in.
I concede the point Jag that you have no other real options, but even if you were independently wealthy, you could pay for what care you wanted. In Canada, even THAT option isn't available unless you go to the........US.

Up here, the debate is always framed with the "US Style Healthcare" on one side, and keeping the status quo. The reality is I don't want a totally private system based on the way the HMO's screw people over, but I do want options and I do think for most people in the prime of their lives in good health, a private option can be more affordable than having my taxes going up every year to pay for healthcare that I am not using. I realize that the system needs to be supported, but I have lost faith in the public trust we have with our healthcare providers to use the money effectively.

Every time contract's are up with the nurses, or the administrative staff, they want MORE than anyone in the private sector is getting in raises and perks, and they are given it. They hold the nation hostage while claiming to be doing what is best for use. Healthcare costs in Canada are rising 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation. It is UNSUSTAINABLE....so something will have to give soon...and when it does, it will rip society apart...

[Jag_Warrior]

I concede the point Jag that you have no other real options, but even if you were independently wealthy, you could pay for what care you wanted. In Canada, even THAT option isn't available unless you go to the........US.

If a person is independently wealthy he wouldn't have to come here either. He could go anywhere in the world and get the absolute best treatment available. With enough money, you have all sorts of choices. The ONLY reason I can continue going to the doctor is because I have the means to pay (up to a point) whether the insurance pays or not. But if I hadn't shelled out that first 5 figure check a couple of months ago, do you think this specialist would be seeing me now? The answer is no.

And while I understand what the law says up there, in truth, people are going to private physicians in Canada and have been for several years, according to this 2006 NY Times article. Have things been reversed since it was written?


Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years in discomfort before receiving treatment.

The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.
As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html)



Up here, the debate is always framed with the "US Style Healthcare" on one side, and keeping the status quo. The reality is I don't want a totally private system based on the way the HMO's screw people over, but I do want options and I do think for most people in the prime of their lives in good health, a private option can be more affordable than having my taxes going up every year to pay for healthcare that I am not using. I realize that the system needs to be supported, but I have lost faith in the public trust we have with our healthcare providers to use the money effectively.

So the debate on health care is plagued by extremists up there too, eh? Only it sounds like the extremists on the left are the primary ones making up the wild, unfounded or exaggerated claims up there?



Every time contract's are up with the nurses, or the administrative staff, they want MORE than anyone in the private sector is getting in raises and perks, and they are given it. They hold the nation hostage while claiming to be doing what is best for use. Healthcare costs in Canada are rising 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation. It is UNSUSTAINABLE....so something will have to give soon...and when it does, it will rip society apart...

As I said above, it's very unfortunate that the "debate" here (and maybe there too?) revolved around insurance more so than any actual reforms to the health care system. Reforming insurance does very little to stem the rising cost of health care.

As in most cases, the best answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. Outlawing private clinics is just as goofy as pretending that Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system are not already socialist schemes. And if you tried to take them way, there would be riots in the streets here. Old people with canes and walkers are a lot more dangerous than many realize. But until the conductors of the debates in our Congress (or your Parliament) are able to use facts and not just hyperbole, I don't see much more being accomplished.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag, it is a very much the same thing. It is the 3rd rail of politics in both the US and in Canada. Except the extremists are from the right in the US, and the left here in Canada for sure.

The reality is, most doctors up here are NOT in the private business, even under the table. IN Ontario that is...where the government is really playing hardball with even having the discussion. In Quebec and in Alberta however, private care clinics are popping up because in both provinces, a sense of reality is starting to kick in. Quebec is broke from one socialist scheme after another (if they separated they would be the biggest economic basketcase in the Western world. If it wasn't for the "Anglos" they despise, they would be in a hole like Greeces if not deeper). So Quebec has tolerated some private clinics popping up doing work that is "off the plan" but in reality they do just general care. IN Alberta, our most rich and conservatively governed province, they told Ottawa they would do what they wanted, since Healthcare is not a federallly mandated power under our Constitution. However, Alberta is more cautious about this than maybe the rhetoric would dictate. The key to any of the private clinics is the work that our Public healthcare system isn't getting funding for, or is allowed to get money for. Abortion clinics have been around for a while, and people can pay for abortions rather than go through the public system.

The whole thing is, whether anyone up here wants to admit it or not, is there is a creeping sense in Canada that we know are getting hosed, but we haven't quite found a movement to vocalize it yet. However, when PM Paul Martin was campaigning how PM to be Stephen Harper was going to allow the privitization of health care, PM Martin was going to a private clinic in Montreal for his own needs, and when that hit the press people were pissed and it was a factor in Harper getting elected. Especially ironic when Paul Martin Sr was the guy who set up the funding from the Feds for the Provinces to run State run healthcare in the 60's.

Then we had the spectre last year of the Premier of Newfoundland ripping the fed's again over how they wanted to destroy public healthcare, and then flying off to Florida for a heart procedure that may not have been available in Newfoundland, but sure as hell could have been done in Toronto or Montreal.

This do as I say, not as I do stuff from our "elites" will rip the debate out of the theory into the open. You can see it in the US too. The Congress has mandated everyone HAS to have healthcare, and it is obvious they want to really put the screws to the private system. Notice though the Congressman can opt out of all of this? They made sure they had their own private little system that you pay for?

No, If I lived in the US, I would be in the Tea Party movement for the screwing with the system I see now....because what Obama and Pelosi have put on the laps of you guys will be your undoing...mark my words. It is too expensive, and people, even reasonable people such as I know that if there is to be an expansion of public healthcare to help the truly needy, this plan isn't it....

[Jag_Warrior]

And today my insurance company learned that my lawyer is a hell of a lot better than my doctor. They had 30 days to review my case and they've now violated their own rules. Luckily for me, Apple Computer is up about $100 a share. So I currently have some spare cash floating around. And before I'll pay another frickin' hospital bill (for which I am supposed to be insured), I'll hire three more lawyers and spend a week with a local newspaper reporter detailing this travesty.

I wonder what people do who don't have the money to hire attorneys to fight these nickel-sniffing bastages? Oh yeah, I'm sure another insurance company will pick them up, or maybe Sarah Palin and the tea baggers will help them out. :rolleyes:

So one of these days, if you're watching Fox News and you hear about a large man wearing a Roman Praetorian Guard helmet and holding a razor sharp gladius to a health insurance CEO's crotch (threatening to castrate him in one SLOW swipe), you'll know that I ran out of money and that I finally went off the deep end. If they bring the cameras in close enough, I'll be sure to give a big shout-out to the peeps on MotorsportForum though. :wave:

It's America, baby... where your "rights" are DIRECTLY proportional to the size of your bank account. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Vitam regit fortuna, non sapientia
(Fortune, not wisdom, rules lives.)

[race aficionado]

And today my insurance company learned that my lawyer is a hell of a lot better than my doctor. They had 30 days to review my case and they've now violated their own rules. Luckily for me, Apple Computer is up about $100 a share. So I currently have some spare cash floating around. And before I'll pay another frickin' hospital bill (for which I am supposed to be insured), I'll hire three more lawyers and spend a week with a local newspaper reporter detailing this travesty.

I wonder what people do who don't have the money to hire attorneys to fight these nickel-sniffing bastages? Oh yeah, I'm sure another insurance company will pick them up, or maybe Sarah Palin and the tea baggers will help them out. :rolleyes:

So one of these days, if you're watching Fox News and you hear about a large man wearing a Roman Praetorian Guard helmet and holding a razor sharp gladius to a health insurance CEO's crotch (threatening to castrate him in one SLOW swipe), you'll know that I ran out of money and that I finally went off the deep end. If they bring the cameras in close enough, I'll be sure to give a big shout-out to the peeps on MotorsportForum though. :wave:

It's America, baby... where your "rights" are DIRECTLY proportional to the size of your bank account. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Vitam regit fortuna, non sapientia
(Fortune, not wisdom, rules lives.)

Keep up the good fight Jag.
The "Warrior" suits you well.

race
:s mokin:

[Jag_Warrior]

Keep up the good fight Jag.
The "Warrior" suits you well.

race
:s mokin:

Thank you, my friend. But in truth, the only thing saving me is the fact that the two hospitals owed the most money are allowing me enough time to fight this battle before they begin collection actions. My credit rating is very important to me, and essential to my business. I can't afford a ding - I've worked too hard to achieve a high score (which allows me cheap/easy credit when I need it). But as long as the hospitals and doctors will hold off, I'll fight these low-life SOB's until I take my last breath!

And whether I hurt anyone's feelings here or not, I say this sincerely: anyone who believes that some type of reforms weren't needed to prevent crap like what I'm experiencing is an idiot and full of ####!!!!!!!!!!!! Until I got sick this year, I had no idea how screwed up our system was!

[Hondo]

Fiero's measurement method for civil suits:

If your attorney effects a minor drool and agrees to upfront all costs until after the settlement, you have a for sure winning case son.

If your attorney hasn't dozed off and requires only the initial court costs and filing fees from you, you probably have a winner.

If your attorney took at least one phone call, wants court costs and filing fees upfront, and a rather large retainer, you don't stand a chance and he knows it so he is going to make sure he gets paid upfront.

I realize this is shutting the barn after the horse is gone, but I hope you are beginning to separate your personal credit rating from that of your business. It's time for the business to become a separate entity.

[Mark]

At least with the NHS they must treat you. There is no getting out of it because you happened to miss out some information when you've filled in a form, and that is the way it should be!

The NHS has lasted a long time but I do wonder how long it will last. We have a Conservative majority government now and traditionally they've tried their best to kill off the health service every time they've been in power. Despite them saying they aren't going to do that, I do wonder.

[Jag_Warrior]

Fiero's measurement method for civil suits:

If your attorney effects a minor drool and agrees to upfront all costs until after the settlement, you have a for sure winning case son.

If your attorney hasn't dozed off and requires only the initial court costs and filing fees from you, you probably have a winner.

If your attorney took at least one phone call, wants court costs and filing fees upfront, and a rather large retainer, you don't stand a chance and he knows it so he is going to make sure he gets paid upfront.

I realize this is shutting the barn after the horse is gone, but I hope you are beginning to separate your personal credit rating from that of your business. It's time for the business to become a separate entity.

The attorneys are fellow "Hoos" and I've known them for 25+ years. I don't know that many good doctors. But I know a boatload of good lawyers. :)

The business is a separate entity(s) with respect to legal liability. When Sub Chapter S's, land companies, land trusts and LLC's are under the ownership of one person, building a meaningful, separate credit rating for each entity becomes impractical. Apart from that, employers also pull credit reports. So again, in this day and age when credit ratings affect what you can and can't do, I would not put at risk that which I have worked my entire adult life to build up. Worst case, I'll pay the unpaid bills and sue the insurance company, in addition to filing a complaint with the state corporation commission.

[Jag_Warrior]

At least with the NHS they must treat you. There is no getting out of it because you happened to miss out some information when you've filled in a form, and that is the way it should be!

The NHS has lasted a long time but I do wonder how long it will last. We have a Conservative majority government now and traditionally they've tried their best to kill off the health service every time they've been in power. Despite them saying they aren't going to do that, I do wonder.


What this experience has made me do is look around and realize that when faced with a serious illness, this is closer to the rule, rather than the exception, when it comes to private insurance plans. I doubt you could find more rats in a cheese factory than what you'd find in a health insurance office. They make money by not paying claims. Simple as that.

[Mark]

They make money by not paying claims. Simple as that.

Of course they do, that's what insurance is all about! IMO the health of the nation as a whole is too important to be entrusted to insurance companies.

I'd also argue that the financial health of the country is a similar issue but that's another thread.

[chuck34]

Thank you, my friend. But in truth, the only thing saving me is the fact that the two hospitals owed the most money are allowing me enough time to fight this battle before they begin collection actions. My credit rating is very important to me, and essential to my business. I can't afford a ding - I've worked too hard to achieve a high score (which allows me cheap/easy credit when I need it). But as long as the hospitals and doctors will hold off, I'll fight these low-life SOB's until I take my last breath!

First of all let me say that I really am sorry that the insurance company is screwing you around. I hope that it can all be worked out in the end, and I bet it will be.

And what is wrong with working with the hospitals themselves? They are (mostly) reasonable. To my mind that is the reform that needed to be done, put people in charge of their own health. I know that health care isn't really like auto insurance, but bear with me a moment. When you get a minor ding on your car, you shop around to get the best deal, and maybe not report it to your insurance so your rates don't go up. Why not the same with your health? I know this doesn't really apply in your case, as it doesn't sound like it's a minor deal, but I'll get to that too. But if you have a minor sore throat or cold or something, our system is not set up for you to go to the doc, pay your $20-50 out of pocket and be on your way. No here you have to turn it into your insurance who pretty much imediately deny it and put it into the "process". That costs A LOT and that's why the rates are so high. So back to the more major things like your situation. If most people wouldn't be putting the "minor" things into the system, cost would go down, and the more major things (what insurance was intended for in the first place) would get taken care of better/easier/cheaper.

Sorry for the long winded ramble there. :)


And whether I hurt anyone's feelings here or not, I say this sincerely: anyone who believes that some type of reforms weren't needed to prevent crap like what I'm experiencing is an idiot and full of ####!!!!!!!!!!!! Until I got sick this year, I had no idea how screwed up our system was!

I don't know ANYONE who says the system didn't need reform. And I think most people do know how screwed up the system is.

But honestly, is some sort of nationalized system (even nationalized light like we have now) really going to do anything to fix this? There are plenty of horror stories out of Canada, the UK, etc. that match your's. When was the last time you went to the BMV and had a good experience? Do you enjoy filling out your tax forms? How does "Obamacare" lower costs? Have you heard the stories out of McDonald's etc.? Has anything been fixed since the passage of this healthcare law?

[chuck34]

At least with the NHS they must treat you. There is no getting out of it because you happened to miss out some information when you've filled in a form, and that is the way it should be!

Jag was treated. He's just being jacked around by the insurance companies. I've heard plenty of other stories from Canada and the UK that rival his. Not that any of it is right, but a nationalized system is not the cure all, and neither is our current system.

[Hondo]

I can identify with Jag a little bit. I always carried the disability option on my medical insurance that would pay you if you could not work due to some disability. When my non-functional thyroid caught up with me I puffed up like a balloon. I couldn't get my boots on at all and had to resort to tennis shoes 2 sizes larger and untied. I went from wearing 38 waist slim fit Wrangler jeans to 3xxx warm up suits with the elastic cut at the ankles to avoid cutting circulation. I gained over 100 lbs and couldn't stay on my feet very long. The process for getting me dialed back in with artificial thyroid hormone would be lengthy because it is done in very small doses. The insurance company denied my disability claim because they don't view thyroid conditions as disabling. We appealed it including a description of the extreme nature of it from my doctor. No dice. The company I worked for, with no obligation to do so, continued to pay me my full salary until such time as I could return to work. There was no pressure from the company other than "We want you to come back to work for us when you feel you're up to it." It was 5 months before I was able to go back and 2 weeks sooner than the doctor wanted me to go back.

I've never trusted insurance companies, especially the way they sell in generalities but pay in specifics. You really have to nail them down and get it in writing when buying a policy, which most of us don't take the time to do. All things considered, I still think the main problem with medical services is the cost of the services themselves, not the insurance.

Obama hasn't made any reforms to health care itself, he's merely created a pea and nutshell monte game with the insurance coverage.

[Jag_Warrior]

I know a LOT of people who were against any sort of reform at all: some of my mother's friends, who are ALL on Medicare (:dozey :) , and some younger people I work with, who believe that they are immortal.

My main issue is with this crooked insurance company. But I have issues with the hospitals and doctors too. Like most people, I am not a medical expert. And even if I was, when a person is semi-conscious, they're not exactly able to think things through or make decisions very well. Unlike with an automobile, which I know a lot about, I'm at a loss when it comes to medicine. And once you're staring up from a gurney, your options become severely limited. With a disabled car, if I don't like the advice or the estimated price, I'll tell the shop manager to stop and I'll put it on a roll-back and take it somewhere else. With a disabled "me", I don't know whether the advice is good or bad and they can't give me an (accurate) estimated price. Once I got out of the hospital, I had to take a battery of tests. By then I was already having issues with the insurance company, so I asked the doctor's office about what this test would cost, in case I had to pay for it. The estimate was $1000. The final bill ended up being over $4000. This, combined with a "consulting" doctor who charged $350 to shake my hand and say hello, sent me off the deep end. The next time I was in the hospital, as soon as I could walk, I told them I was leaving. They said I couldn't. I asked if they had hired Mike Tyson as their new head of security... and if they hadn't, I couldn't think of anyone else who could stop me from leaving. They were going to bleed me by doing a test every other day and running up the bill. Once I started walking past the desk, they told me to stop and wait for a wheelchair, since that was a hospital rule. I told them that was OK, as that wheelchair might cost me extra... and left!

We have issues with medical care/billing and we have issues with insurance. Yes, they are two different things and I am not convinced that the reform that was passed addresses either or both satisfactorily. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to do anything that's going to seriously affect the trial lawyers or the AMA. But I'll tell you this, Michele Bachmann better be careful when she says she's going to cut her wrists over the passing of this bill. I'm still waiting for the good & kooky congresswoman to keep her word on that. If she says that while standing next to me, I might help her keep her word. She was/is part of the problem and the solution doesn't know her name.

I can't remember the congressman's name who said this, but IMO he had it 100% right: In America, don't get sick. But if you do get sick, then die quickly!

[Rollo]

If most people wouldn't be putting the "minor" things into the system, cost would go down, and the more major things (what insurance was intended for in the first place) would get taken care of better/easier/cheaper.

The difference is that when people visit their GP on a semi-regular basis for the "minor" things, a picture is built up so that when the "major" things happen, the patient's history is known and a more accurate assessment can be made.
Insurance is about fixing something when it goes horribly wrong. Health care in a nationalised system tends to be more about the general health of patients, so that the things which go "horribly wrong" don't occur as often, ergo the major costs don't happen as often.

Besides which, a national health care system is as a result of a society being compassionate enough not to profit from people when they're at their most vulnerable. Ineffficiencies are cheaper than corruption and profiteering.

[chuck34]

I know a LOT of people who were against any sort of reform at all: some of my mother's friends, who are ALL on Medicare (:dozey :) , and some younger people I work with, who believe that they are immortal.

Those people are idiots, no doubt.


My main issue is with this crooked insurance company. But I have issues with the hospitals and doctors too. Like most people, I am not a medical expert. And even if I was, when a person is semi-conscious, they're not exactly able to think things through or make decisions very well. Unlike with an automobile, which I know a lot about, I'm at a loss when it comes to medicine. And once you're staring up from a gurney, your options become severely limited. With a disabled car, if I don't like the advice or the estimated price, I'll tell the shop manager to stop and I'll put it on a roll-back and take it somewhere else. With a disabled "me", I don't know whether the advice is good or bad and they can't give me an (accurate) estimated price. Once I got out of the hospital, I had to take a battery of tests. By then I was already having issues with the insurance company, so I asked the doctor's office about what this test would cost, in case I had to pay for it. The estimate was $1000. The final bill ended up being over $4000. This, combined with a "consulting" doctor who charged $350 to shake my hand and say hello, sent me off the deep end. The next time I was in the hospital, as soon as I could walk, I told them I was leaving. They said I couldn't. I asked if they had hired Mike Tyson as their new head of security... and if they hadn't, I couldn't think of anyone else who could stop me from leaving. They were going to bleed me by doing a test every other day and running up the bill. Once I started walking past the desk, they told me to stop and wait for a wheelchair, since that was a hospital rule. I told them that was OK, as that wheelchair might cost me extra... and left!

Yes I know my analogy wasn't perfect. Your health is not like your car. My point is that at least on some level the patient needs to be involved in decisions. Right now you (the general you) are really limited in your choices. The system has been built up over the last 50-60 years to really take your choices away and/or make them difficult to do. We do have choices in health insurance companies, but how many really take advantage of that? Most people take the insurance that their employer chooses. I do, even though it really isn't probably the best for me. But being a young relatively healthy (and yes probably a bit lazy) person, I don't see the point in switching. Why would I? They take the money out of my pay check, pre-tax, and take care of it for me. If I switch my taxes become more complicated but I do save money, I've made the choice that for right now the complication is worse than the money I loose. That's just one example that I've bored you with. But there are other ways in which the choices we have aren't always taken advantage of.

Bottom line, I believe that the free market comes up with better solutions (usually) than a government program. But the health care market is so far from free right now that it doesn't really work anymore.


We have issues with medical care/billing and we have issues with insurance. Yes, they are two different things and I am not convinced that the reform that was passed addresses either or both satisfactorily. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to do anything that's going to seriously affect the trial lawyers or the AMA. But I'll tell you this, Michele Bachmann better be careful when she says she's going to cut her wrists over the passing of this bill. I'm still waiting for the good & kooky congresswoman to keep her word on that. If she says that while standing next to me, I might help her keep her word. She was/is part of the problem and the solution doesn't know her name.

Why single out Bachmann? You just make this partisan by doing that. And as you stated BOTH sides have plenty of blame in this. Why not take Obama to task for saying over and over that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep him", in the light of the growing list of companies that are looking at droping their insurance bennifits?


I can't remember the congressman's name who said this, but IMO he had it 100% right: In America, don't get sick. But if you do get sick, then die quickly!

Yes but there are plenty of example that could be quoted about a nationalized system that would make it: Go ahead and get sick. But if you're too old, or if the procedure is too expensive you're gonna need to die quickly. We need the bed.

[chuck34]

The difference is that when people visit their GP on a semi-regular basis for the "minor" things, a picture is built up so that when the "major" things happen, the patient's history is known and a more accurate assessment can be made.
Insurance is about fixing something when it goes horribly wrong. Health care in a nationalised system tends to be more about the general health of patients, so that the things which go "horribly wrong" don't occur as often, ergo the major costs don't happen as often.

Same deal here. That's why most insurances have "wellness benefits". They usually make it free to go get an annual physical. But you can not force people to go to the doctor. Well I guess you could ... is that really the direction you want to go?


Besides which, a national health care system is as a result of a society being compassionate enough not to profit from people when they're at their most vulnerable. Ineffficiencies are cheaper than corruption and profiteering.

It's cheaper because they don't cover as much as private insurance companies. At least here in the US.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/06/30/medicare-more-likely-to-deny-claims-than-commerical-health-insurers/

Medicare was the most likely to deny any part of a claim, with a 6.9 percent rate. Aetna was a close second at 6.8 percent while the others ranged from 2.7 percent to 4.6 percent.

Competition between insurers may increase claims approvals.

Whatever the reason, the fact that Medicare denies more claims than commercial insurers should dispel the myth that the government is simply a benevolent entity, while commercial insurers are ruthless, profit-hungry wolves. The truth–as always–lies not in the black nor the white but in the gray.

[TOgoFASTER]

most claims denied by Medicare were due to billing errors
.

[Hondo]

Better be careful about walking out of the hospital on your own authority. Insurance companies will deny claims if you leave a care facility AMA, that is Against Medical Advice.

[Mark in Oshawa]

.
Insurance is about fixing something when it goes horribly wrong. Health care in a nationalised system tends to be more about the general health of patients, so that the things which go "horribly wrong" don't occur as often, ergo the major costs don't happen as often.

Besides which, a national health care system is as a result of a society being compassionate enough not to profit from people when they're at their most vulnerable. Ineffficiencies are cheaper than corruption and profiteering.

In theory that is right. In practice, well I suggest no. I know that prostate PSA tests are NOT covered in Ontario under our public plan...so I guess my doctor has to wait until I have prostate cancer before I am able to seek treatment? Many preventative measures are considered elective in the Canadian experience, and it is due to the constant rising costs.

When half the public treasury is disappearing into the healthcare monster in my part of the world Rollo, you start to question the efficacy and compassion since the only people who seem happy by this all are employed by said system, not the ones who have to use it and pay for it....

[Jag_Warrior]

Those people are idiots, no doubt.



Yes I know my analogy wasn't perfect. Your health is not like your car. My point is that at least on some level the patient needs to be involved in decisions. Right now you (the general you) are really limited in your choices. The system has been built up over the last 50-60 years to really take your choices away and/or make them difficult to do. We do have choices in health insurance companies, but how many really take advantage of that? Most people take the insurance that their employer chooses. I do, even though it really isn't probably the best for me. But being a young relatively healthy (and yes probably a bit lazy) person, I don't see the point in switching. Why would I? They take the money out of my pay check, pre-tax, and take care of it for me. If I switch my taxes become more complicated but I do save money, I've made the choice that for right now the complication is worse than the money I loose. That's just one example that I've bored you with. But there are other ways in which the choices we have aren't always taken advantage of.

As long as you're healthy and relatively young, yes, you do have options outside of your employer based plan. Are they (truly) better? You'll only know when you file a claim and they either do or don't pay the claim - or maybe they reduce the payment. But if you take a physical to get a new plan and it turns out that you have something that you didn't know about, not only will you not be able to get that plan, you'll have to disclose that condition when you sign up for ANY other plan in the future. If you switch employers, you should be able to get in under open enrollment, but that doesn't mean that they're not going to hassle you if you get really sick. You don't just have the credit card-like fine print to deal with, you also have the "rules" that only the insurance company knows about. Having a health insurance policy in the U.S. right now is sort of like racing in NASCAR: the rules are sort of fluid and change from day-to-day, depending on who you are and how ferocious your lawyer is.

Oh, and depending on where you live, your ability to sue the insurance company may be limited. 50 states and 50 different sets of rules - that has also been a problem.



Bottom line, I believe that the free market comes up with better solutions (usually) than a government program. But the health care market is so far from free right now that it doesn't really work anymore.

It depends on the situation. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. The free market provides better solutions when the potential profit gives sufficient motivation. If you had an insurance company, would you (willingly) insure a woman with breast cancer, a man with prostate cancer, a kid with MS, a person in his 50's who's had a heart attack? Those are bad bets loaded with risk. The Jag_Warrior Health & Life Insurance Co. wouldn't allow any of those people in the door. And if I did let them in, they better be carrying bags of gold nuggets.




Why single out Bachmann? You just make this partisan by doing that. And as you stated BOTH sides have plenty of blame in this. Why not take Obama to task for saying over and over that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep him", in the light of the growing list of companies that are looking at droping their insurance bennifits?

I singled out Bachmann because she was one of the most hyperbolic characters to emerge during these "debates". I can't help the fact that she's a Republican... or the fact that she's an idiot. If Jim Traficant was still around, maybe I'd pull him into the ring too. But right now, Michele has cemented herself as one of the loopiest members of Congress. As for Obama's statements on keeping your doctor or your insurance if you're happy with them, what's your issue with that? Well before this legislation was passed, companies were reducing medical benefits and dropping coverage. Depending on your company's plan, you couldn't just go to any doctor you wanted. Increasingly (before this legislation), you'd only be covered up to the plan maximum if you went to a PRE-AUTHORIZED doctor within your plan's network. If you went to a doctor outside of the network, even with a referral, at best, you may have only been covered to 60% (that's how my plan works, anyway). But whether we're talking about the reforms or what we have now, you can always see whatever doctor you choose. Next week I'm going to see a doctor that my lawyer found for me (what do ya think of that?!). Neither the government nor an insurance company can prevent you from seeing whatever physician you choose. It's just a question of who is going to pay for it.



Yes but there are plenty of example that could be quoted about a nationalized system that would make it: Go ahead and get sick. But if you're too old, or if the procedure is too expensive you're gonna need to die quickly. We need the bed.

And that's exactly what we have had in this country for YEARS... it's just that people didn't realize it until they, or a member of their family got sick. Hit your lifetime max and you had NO insurance coverage... neither did your family. People keep talking about options. If a person with cancer (for example) has maxed out their plan, they have two options: go bankrupt and try to get on Medicaid (that dreaded socialist, government-run health plan) or die. Blue Cross/Blue Shield isn't going to offer a policy to a sick person who has maxed out their lifetime limit with another carrier. The free market is about maximizing profits, not about providing a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, are facing a catastrophic illness.

If anybody wants some good entertainment, watch a bunch of insurance company hacks tap dance while on a conference call with a slick Wahoo lawyer. It's a beautiful thing, baby! I even snuck a zinger in and asked one woman if she went to Tech. :D When attacked, take no prisoners... and shoot the wounded!!! :vader: They should have finished me off while I was still feeling sick. I'm on the mend now... and feelin' frisky again! Low life, crooked, nickel-sniffing bastages!!! :mad:

[chuck34]

As long as you're healthy and relatively young, yes, you do have options outside of your employer based plan. Are they (truly) better? You'll only know when you file a claim and they either do or don't pay the claim - or maybe they reduce the payment. But if you take a physical to get a new plan and it turns out that you have something that you didn't know about, not only will you not be able to get that plan, you'll have to disclose that condition when you sign up for ANY other plan in the future.

But if more patients are in charge of their healthcare choices, many of those issues will work themselves out. If you would go on a campaign to expose the "heartlessness" of your current insurance, and I truly had a choice, I would choose not to go with them. Plus that company would be less likely to screw over the next guy. Profit motive and bad publicity are a good combination.


If you switch employers, you should be able to get in under open enrollment, but that doesn't mean that they're not going to hassle you if you get really sick. You don't just have the credit card-like fine print to deal with, you also have the "rules" that only the insurance company knows about. Having a health insurance policy in the U.S. right now is sort of like racing in NASCAR: the rules are sort of fluid and change from day-to-day, depending on who you are and how ferocious your lawyer is.

Yep, fluid rules in spite of "health care reform". And if insurance wasn't linked to your employer you wouldn't have to worry about what might or might not happen when you decided to change jobs, or that is decided for you. See what I want is patient managed care from the ground up.


Oh, and depending on where you live, your ability to sue the insurance company may be limited. 50 states and 50 different sets of rules - that has also been a problem.

Happens in many different industries every day. A side effect of living in a Republic.


It depends on the situation. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. The free market provides better solutions when the potential profit gives sufficient motivation. If you had an insurance company, would you (willingly) insure a woman with breast cancer, a man with prostate cancer, a kid with MS, a person in his 50's who's had a heart attack? Those are bad bets loaded with risk. The Jag_Warrior Health & Life Insurance Co. wouldn't allow any of those people in the door. And if I did let them in, they better be carrying bags of gold nuggets.

But at the same time you are making the argument against a nationalized system. If a private business wouldn't allow them in because they would be a drain on the companies resources, why wouldn't the "high risks" be a drain on the national resources. Slowly but surely draining the national coffers until bad choices have to be made. You're too old/expensive now Grandma, you're gonna have to die. Point is nationalizing things won't really solve any of the issues. I'm not saying that the free market system is any sort of magic wand either. But I think the private sector has a better shot at (eventually) figuring things out.


I singled out Bachmann because she was one of the most hyperbolic characters to emerge during these "debates". I can't help the fact that she's a Republican... or the fact that she's an idiot. If Jim Traficant was still around, maybe I'd pull him into the ring too. But right now, Michele has cemented herself as one of the loopiest members of Congress.

Oh there's plenty in the running for the title of loopiest. I heard on the radio today someone saying that the US national debt was just a "myth". :D


As for Obama's statements on keeping your doctor or your insurance if you're happy with them, what's your issue with that? Well before this legislation was passed, companies were reducing medical benefits and dropping coverage.

Yes and Obama promised this would stop that. It hasn't. The opposite is acutally true. And I actually suspect that may have been the goal all along. Obama and the Dems knew they couldn't outright get rid of the system as it is now. So they had to make it very expensive for private companies to keep their coverage. That way they would drop their employee's coverage, and those people would turn to the government system.


Depending on your company's plan, you couldn't just go to any doctor you wanted. Increasingly (before this legislation), you'd only be covered up to the plan maximum if you went to a PRE-AUTHORIZED doctor within your plan's network. If you went to a doctor outside of the network, even with a referral, at best, you may have only been covered to 60% (that's how my plan works, anyway). But whether we're talking about the reforms or what we have now, you can always see whatever doctor you choose. Next week I'm going to see a doctor that my lawyer found for me (what do ya think of that?!). Neither the government nor an insurance company can prevent you from seeing whatever physician you choose. It's just a question of who is going to pay for it.

No offense here, but I don't really think that I should be forced to pay for you to go see Dr. Highdollar through your use of my tax dollars to do it as you would in a nationalized system. And I'm not alone in that. I'm not saying that you don't deserve to go to Dr. Highdollar, or that he's not the best, I just don't think that I should be forced to pay for it.


And that's exactly what we have had in this country for YEARS... it's just that people didn't realize it until they, or a member of their family got sick. Hit your lifetime max and you had NO insurance coverage... neither did your family. People keep talking about options. If a person with cancer (for example) has maxed out their plan, they have two options: go bankrupt and try to get on Medicaid (that dreaded socialist, government-run health plan) or die. Blue Cross/Blue Shield isn't going to offer a policy to a sick person who has maxed out their lifetime limit with another carrier.

What happens when we're all on Medicaid and the whole d@mn country goes broke? Ask Canada and the UK, they're asking themselves that right now.


The free market is about maximizing profits, not about providing a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, are facing a catastrophic illness.

Most of us will at some point get gravely ill. Personal responsibilty dictates that we, as individuals, need to be prepared for that.


If anybody wants some good entertainment, watch a bunch of insurance company hacks tap dance while on a conference call with a slick Wahoo lawyer. It's a beautiful thing, baby! I even snuck a zinger in and asked one woman if she went to Tech. :D When attacked, take no prisoners... and shoot the wounded!!! :vader: They should have finished me off while I was still feeling sick. I'm on the mend now... and feelin' frisky again! Low life, crooked, nickel-sniffing bastages!!! :mad:

Glad you're feeling better. :)

[Rollo]

But at the same time you are making the argument against a nationalized system. If a private business wouldn't allow them in because they would be a drain on the companies resources, why wouldn't the "high risks" be a drain on the national resources. Slowly but surely draining the national coffers until bad choices have to be made. You're too old/expensive now Grandma, you're gonna have to die. Point is nationalizing things won't really solve any of the issues. I'm not saying that the free market system is any sort of magic wand either. But I think the private sector has a better shot at (eventually) figuring things out.

Actually you have just inadvertantly stated why a nationalised system is in fact the only ecnomically sensible one.

Logically the people most likely to pay into an insurance fund are those people most likely to draw from the fund, because they are most likely to benefit from it. Likewise the people who are least likely to draw from the fund, in this case the fit and well 20-35 year olds, are also least likely to pay into the fund.
Therefore the total potential collectible funds is invariably going to be less than it otherwise could have been under a system when all of the population is paying into the fund.

Insurance generally is subject to negative self-selection criteria, because of this the most efficient position for any insurance system to be in is one where the total number of insurable items covered, is equal to the total number of paying insurable interests (you can also prove this using Pareto efficiency principles).
Obviously the largest possible number of insurable items covered is the total population of a nation; largest possible number of paying insurable interests is also total population of a nation.

Also where you have multiple administrations (of insurance companies) running a system, it leads to more administrative staff than would otherwise be employed. In fact it is very easy to prove that the United States suffers through increased administration costs through duplication.
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

Therefore whatever argument you happen to throw up about the "private sector has a better shot at (eventually) figuring things out" is merely a moral argument based on another concept of "moral hazard", because the economic aspect of the argument not only fails in theory but in the real world.

[chuck34]

Actually you have just inadvertantly stated why a nationalised system is in fact the only ecnomically sensible one.

Logically the people most likely to pay into an insurance fund are those people most likely to draw from the fund, because they are most likely to benefit from it. Likewise the people who are least likely to draw from the fund, in this case the fit and well 20-35 year olds, are also least likely to pay into the fund.
Therefore the total potential collectible funds is invariably going to be less than it otherwise could have been under a system when all of the population is paying into the fund.

Then why are the UK and Canada trying to find ways to spin off at least parts of their health system?


Insurance generally is subject to negative self-selection criteria, because of this the most efficient position for any insurance system to be in is one where the total number of insurable items covered, is equal to the total number of paying insurable interests (you can also prove this using Pareto efficiency principles).
Obviously the largest possible number of insurable items covered is the total population of a nation; largest possible number of paying insurable interests is also total population of a nation.

In theory you are right. But practice is a whole different animal. And as you state below, there is a moral portion to all this. Is it moral for you to take my money at the point of a gun? Even for a noble cause?


Also where you have multiple administrations (of insurance companies) running a system, it leads to more administrative staff than would otherwise be employed. In fact it is very easy to prove that the United States suffers through increased administration costs through duplication.
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf


I find it very hard to believe that the US government will ever run anything very efficently. That profit motive that many keep denouncing as a horrible thing, also works on things such as efficiency. Run things more efficiently, make more profit. What motive the the government have to run things efficiently?


Therefore whatever argument you happen to throw up about the "private sector has a better shot at (eventually) figuring things out" is merely a moral argument based on another concept of "moral hazard", because the economic aspect of the argument not only fails in theory but in the real world.

Yes what is wrong with looking at the moral aspect of this? Why is it moral for you to take my money, no matter the cause?

And again, why is it that many countries with nationalized healthcare systems are looking at ways to privitize portions of their systems if they are so economical? And is economical (in that sence) really the right question to be asking? The money spent on a national healthcare system does not come from thin air. People had to earn that money, then the government took that money. How would that money have been spent had the government not taken it? Would that have been a better use of said money?

[Rollo]

I find it very hard to believe that the US government will ever run anything very efficently. That profit motive that many keep denouncing as a horrible thing, also works on things such as efficiency. Run things more efficiently, make more profit. What motive the the government have to run things efficiently?

I also believe that the US government will ever run anything very efficiently, precisely because it is white-anted by business interests.
In practice the US health care system is run less efficiently, covers less of the population, produces worse outcomes and costs you more money.

Make more profit? For whom? As a consumer YOU pay for that. Why is it moral for business to take your money, no matter the cause?

Equally the money spent on a private healthcare system does not come from thin air. People had to earn that money, then business took that money.
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
- Ben Franklin, 1738

[chuck34]

I also believe that the US government will ever run anything very efficiently, precisely because it is white-anted by business interests.
In practice the US health care system is run less efficiently, covers less of the population, produces worse outcomes and costs you more money.

I'm not saying that the current form of healthcare in the US is the best. Never have never will. What I have said is that if we allow the healthcare to work in an actual free market, things will slowly but surely get better.

So if the government is so efficient, and great at handing out goods and services, why do we allow private industry to exist at all? Why doesn't the government just run all our factories, farms, industries? Why not just get rid of all this pesky competition all together.


Make more profit? For whom? As a consumer YOU pay for that. Why is it moral for business to take your money, no matter the cause?

As a consumer I pay for EVERYTHING. But I get something out of it. What the heck is wrong with that? That is very moral. I make a choice that I want something for the price someone is charging for it, I pay said price out of my own pocket, I get a good/service, and the supplier gets money that he can then use to pay his employees for the work they have done for him, or expand his business, or buy a yacht, whatever. That's the way free markets work.


Equally the money spent on a private healthcare system does not come from thin air. People had to earn that money, then business took that money.
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
- Ben Franklin, 1738

Business did not TAKE anything. Private individuals made a CHOICE to buy a product or service. The government is the only entity (besides thieves) that TAKES money at the point of a gun.

That Franklin quote is nice, but you miss the point. It's up to the individual to decide what virtues he holds in high enough esteem not to sell for wealth. The government that tries to force it's virtues upon it's people is usually called a totalitarian dictatorship.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think this conundrum will continue for decades. I also think with the extreme cost of healthcare, arguments can be made for both sides. I entered the debate years ago thinking the free market could make things work better and I think still that in most industries, the free market does provide better service for less money. Government operations usually are bloated bureaucratic messes because it is human nature to not really pare down and be efficient when there is no profit motive. THAT all said, I look in the US, and realize there is an issue and dichotomy. If you have the dough, it is a great system. If you are not covered; it is horrific....

It all comes down to whether you figure healthcare is your responsibility or society's responsibility. The reality is I think it is both...and that is why I think a public system complimenting the private sector options is the best blend of both. What Obama is in theory trying to do is this...but I feel how he went about it, played into the fears and overreaction of those who would oppose him if he opened a hot dog stand.

The problem is even this is expensive. Healthcare is expensive period...

[Jag_Warrior]

I think this conundrum will continue for decades. I also think with the extreme cost of healthcare, arguments can be made for both sides. I entered the debate years ago thinking the free market could make things work better and I think still that in most industries, the free market does provide better service for less money. Government operations usually are bloated bureaucratic messes because it is human nature to not really pare down and be efficient when there is no profit motive. THAT all said, I look in the US, and realize there is an issue and dichotomy. If you have the dough, it is a great system. If you are not covered; it is horrific....

It all comes down to whether you figure healthcare is your responsibility or society's responsibility. The reality is I think it is both...and that is why I think a public system complimenting the private sector options is the best blend of both. What Obama is in theory trying to do is this...but I feel how he went about it, played into the fears and overreaction of those who would oppose him if he opened a hot dog stand.

The problem is even this is expensive. Healthcare is expensive period...

Excellent post, Mark. I think you've nailed it.

With a previous company, I would go into various facilities across the enterprise to develop and implement improvements. For general conversation, let's just use the popular term "Lean Implementation". Most especially with the unionized facilities, I was usually met with a less than warm welcome. Before I'd even opened my mouth, the rumors were already being spread that I was there to fire people, make the remainder work harder and faster... and after that, I'd shut the plant down and move it to Mexico. :rolleyes:

So I'm used to people using wild hyperbole and extremist assumptions to protect their sacred cows. All of the talk about "death panels", unplugging grandma, "we'll all be on Medicaid", socialism this and socialism that simply caused me to tune those people out. For whatever reason, it seems to be the nature of mankind to arrive at a conclusion well before the process has even been decided on. You can't have a meaningful debate or reform a process if one party or the other has already reached a conclusion on what the outcome is going to be. What might work in Europe or Canada might not work here... and no one should have insisted that any reforms here would/should mimic the systems there. Health care reform here could have used what worked in various systems to build the BEST (in class) system for us. But because of short sighted people ON BOTH sides, that's not what we got. I still don't consider myself an expert on health insurance or medical billing. But with this recent experience, I know a hell of a lot more today than I did on this day 12 months ago. And I know that my experience is far from unique. It's probably closer to the rule rather than the exception when it comes to a serious illness. So I say this with confidence, but sadly: what we have here is not a system designed to cure or heal, it is a system designed to generate the most revenue possible through testing, mystery consulting doctors and multiple office visits... as well as insurance companies which deny claims for no legal reason whatsoever. And only when they encounter a patient, who has the means to cause more trouble than it would be worth to pay the claim, do they pay that claim. If the American consumer banking system operated in this manner, our economy would have collapsed by now. As bad as many people may think banks are, they don't hold a candle to the American insurance and medical system.

Our predicament is unfortunate, but I can't say that I'm all that surprised. That's what happens when not enough people have the intelligence, the will, the desire or the power to kill the sacred cows while the village is facing starvation. And if the "plebes" can be convinced that the death of the sacred cow will cause the gods to rain down death and destruction on them, they will reject ANY proposals, and be content to listen to their stomachs growl while the sacred cow continues to eat well.

An old saying which my grandfather used to utter to describe his general view of mankind: "when in danger, when in doubt... run in circles, scream and shout."

[Rollo]

Private individuals made a CHOICE to buy a product or service.

Tell me again why you deliberately want to choose to pay more for a service? That seems idiotic.

[chuck34]

Tell me again why you deliberately want to choose to pay more for a service? That seems idiotic.

I never said that. You are giving me a false choice between the current system and a "Nationalized" system. If those are the only choices availible, I choose C, none of the above, as I think I have been fairly clear in my posts.

[Jag_Warrior]

And as of today, Wells Fargo Insurance cries "uncle!"
http://uvtblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/punch7.jpg


Screw with me again and see if it turns out any different, ya bunch of incompetent, crooked, lying, lowlife, punk-a$$ beeches!!! Until they toss the last shovel of dirt on the box that contains my dead body, I will NEVER let myself be taken advantage of by some quasi-criminal organization/industry that only exists because it has enough money to buy crooked "regulation = unplugging grandma" politicians!

And BTW, I don't accept your surrender terms... though I am cashing the check today. I'm still going to report your sorry company to the state corporation commission and the insurance regulators! I don't expect that they'll do anything, since you've probably bought them off too. But the fight is not (truly) over til I say it's over! I don't care if you have a white flag or not. That just tells me that you're weak! :p :

[race aficionado]

And as of today, Wells Fargo Insurance cries "uncle!"
http://uvtblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/punch7.jpg


Screw with me again and see if it turns out any different, ya bunch of incompetent, crooked, lying, lowlife, punk-a$$ beeches!!! Until they toss the last shovel of dirt on the box that contains my dead body, I will NEVER let myself be taken advantage of by some quasi-criminal organization/industry that only exists because it has enough money to buy crooked "regulation = unplugging grandma" politicians!

And BTW, I don't accept your surrender terms... though I am cashing the check today. I'm still going to report your sorry company to the state corporation commission and the insurance regulators! I don't expect that they'll do anything, since you've probably bought them off too. But the fight is not (truly) over til I say it's over! I don't care if you have a white flag or not. That just tells me that you're weak! :p :


Ejoy.
;)


:s mokin:

[Rollo]

What I have said is that if we allow the healthcare to work in an actual free market, things will slowly but surely get better.

They can not "get better" because where you have a free market in the case of insurance, because of the two factors of negative self-selection and dis-efficiencies by not covering total insurance risk, internal costs in the system rise, which is precisely what the current situation is.



I never said that. You are giving me a false choice between the current system and a "Nationalized" system. If those are the only choices available, I choose C, none of the above, as I think I have been fairly clear in my posts.

I know you never said that you deliberately want to choose to pay more for a service, but the fact that you favour a free market in this case at all means that that is the position you occupy.
You either choose the most efficient position which is one where the total population is covered by a single entity or one which increases dis-efficiencies by not covering total insurance risk.

You can choose C "none of the above", which itself is a market failure and precisely where about 40 million Americans find themselves.

[chuck34]

They can not "get better" because where you have a free market in the case of insurance, because of the two factors of negative self-selection and dis-efficiencies by not covering total insurance risk, internal costs in the system rise, which is precisely what the current situation is.

Show me where there is a true free market for insurance. One where people are free to choose their plan without "guidance" from the government. One where people are free to enjoy all the benifits and consequences of their actions.


I know you never said that you deliberately want to choose to pay more for a service, but the fact that you favour a free market in this case at all means that that is the position you occupy.
You either choose the most efficient position which is one where the total population is covered by a single entity or one which increases dis-efficiencies by not covering total insurance risk.

You can choose C "none of the above", which itself is a market failure and precisely where about 40 million Americans find themselves.

If you think "none of the above" is a market failure, then you don't understand the free market system. None of the above is a very valid choice for any market, including insurance. Along with that are consequences that also must be in effect for it to be a true market. (NOTE: I am not a heartless b@stard, but there are charities that are pretty effective at working a lot of these things out, or hospitals/doctors also do many amazing things to help people who truly need help, etc.)

Again with this meme of "the most efficient position" BS. Do you truly believe that only a single choice controlled by the government (or anyone else for that matter) is really the most efficient? If so why stop at insurance? Why wouldn't that apply for cars? Why not food? Computers? Anything else? Do you believe in the free market system, or government controlled monopolies?

[Jag_Warrior]

My goodness... they didn't get me til I was 5 years old with this "pre-existing condition" B.S. This little gal was still in the womb! :rolleyes:

Aetna Insurance: Newborn Baby With Pre-Existing Condition? (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TheLaw/answers-baby-denied-medical-coverage-womb/story?id=11871449)


New mother Kelly Barnes is heartbroken and angry.

She's heartbroken because she has endured what no mother should have to endure. While pregnant with twins, she lost one of them at 30 weeks. The other baby, Kinsleigh, was born with serious heart problems.

But Barnes is angry because her insurance company, Aetna, held up paying thousands of dollars in medical charges. The reason? The insurance company said the newborn might have been suffering from a pre-existing condition.

"I don't know how something could be pre-existing in a baby, so it was very shocking to me to see something like that," Barnes told "Good Morning America." "It's a slap in the face. Her medical bills are the last thing I should be worrying about. I should know that my baby is being taken care of."

"Under Aetna's own definition, in order to deny for pre-existing condition, there has to be medical advice or care that was rendered or given," Barnes' attorney, Tom Caldwell, said. "And in this case, of course, that would be real hard, given the fact the baby was still in the womb."

Finally, Barnes contacted "GMA." We called the insurance company in September and they claim that the pre-existing condition hold up was a simple coding error and have been paying back Barnes' claims since July. But Barnes said that no one ever told her that and it wasn't until "GMA" got involved that all the costs were finally paid this week.

"It really might be a clerical error, but let's face it, it is in the company's interest to not pay bills. The fewer bills they pay, the better their bottom line is," Friedholm said

Kelly, if you have any more problems with those nickel-sniffers at Aetna, let me know and I'll get you my guy's number. He said that he had so much fun with my case that he might start specializing in crotch-kicking these crooked health insurance companies.

[Rollo]

Again with this meme of "the most efficient position" BS. Do you truly believe that only a single choice controlled by the government (or anyone else for that matter) is really the most efficient?

Insurance is a monetary hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. This implies a statistical risk which can be calculated and measured.

The Law of Large Numbers states that the more times you perform an experiment, then the average of those experiments will tend more towards either a theoretical or statistical average.
To wit, for a very large rolls of a die you should end up with the average ending up at about 3.5 (because (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6=3.5). Likewise, if you take a very large sample size for other events, the more times you repeat the experiment then the closer you get to the
theoretical or statistical average.

For a population of people, the statistical average for something medically bad happening to them (which is why you take out insurance in the first place) tends towards the statistical average for something medically bad happening to them with an ever increasing sample size.
Since the entire population is also equal to the the entire sample size, then the statistical average for something happening, is also equal to the statistical average for something happening (unity equals unity).
Therefore from a statistical standpoint, the best sample size on which to base and charge your insurance coverage, is obviously the entire population. It follows that Risk is best spread over the entire population on this basis.

There is a problem though:
The population itself isn't uniform. There are older people and younger people. The chance of a 21 year old person suffering from an age related cancer, is not as high as a 74 year old. Also the chance of a 83 year old lady being in a serious motor accident is not as high as a 24 year old male.

It follows that the people who would want to buy insurance are also the same people most likely to drain the pool of funds. From the insurance organisation's point of view, this poses a problem. If younger people are less likely to pay into the fund and older people are more likely to draw from it, then the premiums must be invariably higher than if everyone had been paying into the fund in the first place.

Insurance by it's nature suffers from negative self-selection for the above reasons. The best way to avoid this is to spread selection of payers over the widest possible base. Since the widest possible base is in fact the entire population, then for this reason the best possible selection system is also the entire population.


If so why stop at insurance? Why wouldn't that apply for cars? Why not food? Computers? Anything else? Do you believe in the free market system, or government controlled monopolies?

Food, cars and computers are private, rivalrous, consumer goods. One person who enjoys the good prevents anyone else from using it. If you eat a Snickers bar, it's virtually impossible for anyone else to eat it after you have. Virtually every private good is rivalrous.

I do believe in the free market system and in government controlled monopolies where they are appropriate. I suspect that you do as well.


If you think "none of the above" is a market failure, then you don't understand the free market system. None of the above is a very valid choice for any market, including insurance. Along with that are consequences that also must be in effect for it to be a true market.

Market Failure by definition is either an inefficient allocation of resources because of the operation of the market, or total non-allocation of resources because of the operation of the market. "None of the above" is when there is a total non-allocation of resources and is the very definition of Market Failure.


Show me where there is a true free market for insurance. One where people are free to choose their plan without "guidance" from the government. One where people are free to enjoy all the benefits and consequences of their actions.


Of course I can't. But I can show you an example of an insurance system which leads to increasing inequitable outcomes where people are denied benefits because of the consequences of someone else's actions.

[chuck34]

Insurance is a monetary hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. This implies a statistical risk which can be calculated and measured.

The Law of Large Numbers states that the more times you perform an experiment, then the average of those experiments will tend more towards either a theoretical or statistical average.
To wit, for a very large rolls of a die you should end up with the average ending up at about 3.5 (because (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6=3.5). Likewise, if you take a very large sample size for other events, the more times you repeat the experiment then the closer you get to the
theoretical or statistical average.

For a population of people, the statistical average for something medically bad happening to them (which is why you take out insurance in the first place) tends towards the statistical average for something medically bad happening to them with an ever increasing sample size.
Since the entire population is also equal to the the entire sample size, then the statistical average for something happening, is also equal to the statistical average for something happening (unity equals unity).
Therefore from a statistical standpoint, the best sample size on which to base and charge your insurance coverage, is obviously the entire population. It follows that Risk is best spread over the entire population on this basis.

There is a problem though:
The population itself isn't uniform. There are older people and younger people. The chance of a 21 year old person suffering from an age related cancer, is not as high as a 74 year old. Also the chance of a 83 year old lady being in a serious motor accident is not as high as a 24 year old male.

It follows that the people who would want to buy insurance are also the same people most likely to drain the pool of funds. From the insurance organisation's point of view, this poses a problem. If younger people are less likely to pay into the fund and older people are more likely to draw from it, then the premiums must be invariably higher than if everyone had been paying into the fund in the first place.

Insurance by it's nature suffers from negative self-selection for the above reasons. The best way to avoid this is to spread selection of payers over the widest possible base. Since the widest possible base is in fact the entire population, then for this reason the best possible selection system is also the entire population.

Good discription, but what's your point? Looks like you are saying that you are ok with taking someone's money by force for "the greater good". Where do you stop?


Food, cars and computers are private, rivalrous, consumer goods. One person who enjoys the good prevents anyone else from using it. If you eat a Snickers bar, it's virtually impossible for anyone else to eat it after you have. Virtually every private good is rivalrous.

Again, what's your point? Earlier you were saying that insurance was inefficient because there were duplicate marketing departments and such. Well competing car companies also have duplicate marketing departments. Especially now that GM is partially owned by the government, wouldn't it be more efficient and a better use of our money for GM to be the only car company?


I do believe in the free market system and in government controlled monopolies where they are appropriate. I suspect that you do as well.

Not really. ESPECIALLY not FEDERALLY controlled monopolies. Here comes the tired old "Police and Fire" argument. blah, blah, blah.


Market Failure by definition is either an inefficient allocation of resources because of the operation of the market, or total non-allocation of resources because of the operation of the market. "None of the above" is when there is a total non-allocation of resources and is the very definition of Market Failure.

"None of the above" is not a market failure. It is a failure of a business to sell it's product. That is a VERY viable option because people have CHOICES. If business are not allowed to fail we end up with zombie corporations, and that's not good for anyone.


Of course I can't. But I can show you an example of an insurance system which leads to increasing inequitable outcomes where people are denied benefits because of the consequences of someone else's actions.

So your only solution is to scrap private industries and impose government control on a market that isn't very good because of too much government control? There are better options out there, use a bit of imagination.

[Rollo]

Good discription, but what's your point? Looks like you are saying that you are ok with taking someone's money by force for "the greater good". Where do you stop?

The point is that the nature of healthcare is such, that maximum efficiency exists when only one entity runs it. It doesn't matter if that be "government", a quango, a private corporation, a single trustee etc etc etc.

It would be better if government controls the system, because then we stand a greater chance of holding the system accountable. You apparently do not believe in either democracy or holding people accountable for their actions.



Again, what's your point? Earlier you were saying that insurance was inefficient because there were duplicate marketing departments and such. Well competing car companies also have duplicate marketing departments. Especially now that GM is partially owned by the government, wouldn't it be more efficient and a better use of our money for GM to be the only car company?

No. GM is a motor car company. Car companies sell single consumer, rivalrous goods. If one person owns a car, then market forces (supply and demand) will counter to determine price.
Several firms competing in a market where there are roughly identical items, helps the market establish equlibrium faster.

Different circumstances require different solutions.


Not really. ESPECIALLY not FEDERALLY controlled monopolies. Here comes the tired old "Police and Fire" argument. blah, blah, blah.

What of the Department of Defence? Is it appropriate to have competing firms in that marketplace? My experiences in Nigeria this year would prove otherwise.



"None of the above" is not a market failure. It is a failure of a business to sell it's product. That is a VERY viable option because people have CHOICES. If business are not allowed to fail we end up with zombie corporations, and that's not good for anyone.

Business failure isn't market failure. Market failure is when goods and services aren't allocated efficiently because of the operation of the market. A total non-allocation is not efficient at all. If a business fails it is entirely different to the market failing, because in a free market, firms are free to come and go as they choose.

What is this crap about choice? I live in a country with a nationalised health care system. I can if I want to, visit any GP in the country which I choose (I have a choice of +34,000); in most cases without appointment. I can also if I choose be treated by the surgeon of my choice and in the hospital of my choice (providing the hospital or surgeon actually performs said procedure).
I can tell you having been a "customer" of the US health care system, that your beloved choice, results in worse patient outcomes and patients being turned away.
I would say with almost 100% certainty that I have far more choice, and pay possibly less than half of what you do for that choice.


So your only solution is to scrap private industries and impose government control on a market that isn't very good because of too much government control? There are better options out there, use a bit of imagination.

Experience is a brilliant teacher. The US healthcare system proves to the world that if you allow profits to drive the system, people die. How you can possibly hold up a system which accounts for 62% of all personal bankruptcies, where you have a life expetancy lower than even Cuba, and infant mortality rates are the worst of major industrialised countries is an anathema.
If there are better systems out there, then obviously it would do well to copy them.

[chuck34]

The point is that the nature of healthcare is such, that maximum efficiency exists when only one entity runs it. It doesn't matter if that be "government", a quango, a private corporation, a single trustee etc etc etc.

Again, you have yet to make a rational argument as to why this would stop at just healthcare. Your "rivalrous goods" argument just doesn't hold water. Stay with me on this ....


It would be better if government controls the system, because then we stand a greater chance of holding the system accountable. You apparently do not believe in either democracy or holding people accountable for their actions.

Why? Is there a "greater chance of holding the system accountable" under government control? Are there really no corrupt, inefficient, non-responsive governments out there?

As far as "holding people accountable for their actions", what about their non-actions?


No. GM is a motor car company. Car companies sell single consumer, rivalrous goods. If one person owns a car, then market forces (supply and demand) will counter to determine price.
Several firms competing in a market where there are roughly identical items, helps the market establish equlibrium faster.

Your flaw is in beliving that the free market only exists for goods. It does work on services. If we in the US lived in a truly free market health insurance system, then Jag could simply start some sort of campaign to expose his carrier for the corruption and inefficiency he's seen. Then that company would be forced to either change it's policies or face loosing customers. I know I wouldn't do business with someone who has treated Jag this way for something that happened when he was 5 and he didn't know about.


Different circumstances require different solutions.

Quite right.


What of the Department of Defence? Is it appropriate to have competing firms in that marketplace? My experiences in Nigeria this year would prove otherwise.

Do you really believe that there is no competition for defence contracts? You are smarter than that.


Business failure isn't market failure.

Thank you for agreeing with me. ;)


Market failure is when goods and services aren't allocated efficiently because of the operation of the market. A total non-allocation is not efficient at all. If a business fails it is entirely different to the market failing, because in a free market, firms are free to come and go as they choose.

In a TRULY free market wouldn't some individual or corporation step up to correct said inefficiency?

Aren't individuals free to come and go in the free market?


What is this crap about choice? I live in a country with a nationalised health care system. I can if I want to, visit any GP in the country which I choose (I have a choice of +34,000); in most cases without appointment. I can also if I choose be treated by the surgeon of my choice and in the hospital of my choice (providing the hospital or surgeon actually performs said procedure).

So you agree with me that the current US system isn't really free, that we don't really have a choice. Even with "Obamacare"? Cool. :)


I can tell you having been a "customer" of the US health care system, that your beloved choice, results in worse patient outcomes and patients being turned away.
I would say with almost 100% certainty that I have far more choice, and pay possibly less than half of what you do for that choice.

When have I said that the current system is my "beloved choice". Here I was thinking you actually read my posts. Silly me......


Experience is a brilliant teacher. The US healthcare system proves to the world that if you allow profits to drive the system, people die.

Don't forget MASSIVE government regulation.


How you can possibly hold up a system

I don't. Please read my posts, don't just assume what you think I'm talking about.


which accounts for 62% of all personal bankruptcies,

So bankrupting entire nations is more desirable to you then? Plenty of examples out there that say your system has an effect on entire nations.


where you have a life expetancy lower than even Cuba,

Really? Hmmmmmm......
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
The US is 49th, 78.11 years (granted not too good)
Cuba is 55th, 77.45 years

But the real question is are all causes of death "medically related"? I bet that a big factor of death in the US is trafic fatalities, for example, and that's not a big deal in Cuba. Is that a failure of the medical system?????? How about gang violence??? There are many other factors of death that are NOT medically related. Our culuture has many flaws, I'll be the first to admit that.


and infant mortality rates are the worst of major industrialised countries is an anathema.

OK, let's compare apples to oranges and see who comes out on top. Sounds like fun, right? What I mean is let's count preme's the same. OK?????

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0
"For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates."
"Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere."

Interestingly from the same source...
"Being eligible for Medicaid does not necessarily guarantee access to care, however, especially in areas where providers are in short supply."

Now how could that be? How could there possibly be a shortage of SUPPLY in Medicaid? Afterall it IS a Nationalized System, and those are great???? Right???? ....... RIGHT????? .... Hmmmmmmmmm?


If there are better systems out there, then obviously it would do well to copy them.

Yep. On that we are in full agreement. So show me the sytem that is vastly superior to the FREE market system using the SAME metrics, and I'll be on board.