DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[FlaSoxxJim]

Is our system perfect? HELL NO! Does it need changes? HELL YES! Is the answer "socialized" medicine, where I get told what doctor I will see, etc.? NOPE.

 

There's the answer to Alpha's earlier question about why there are so few health care discussions. They end as quickly as they begin because of entrenched ideological positions against "socialized" medicine. Let's talk about moving toward some form of universal health care in this country without using the loaded terminology. It's been said here but it bears repeating – we leave the really important things like national defense and homeland security and disaster response to the feds so why not our health care? We can be productive, contributing members of society, pay into and carry full health coverage, and still be one just major health-related issue away from bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc. I'd say 90% of working America is in that boat. That is a failed health care system in need of more than a few tweaks.

 

[kapkomet]

There's the answer to Alpha's earlier question about why there are so few health care discussions. They end as quickly as they begin because of entrenched ideological positions against "socialized" medicine. Let's talk about moving toward some form of universal health care in this country without using the loaded terminology. It's been said here but it bears repeating – we leave the really important things like national defense and homeland security and disaster response to the feds so why not our health care? We can be productive, contributing members of society, pay into and carry full health coverage, and still be one just major health-related issue away from bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc. I'd say 90% of working America is in that boat. That is a failed health care system in need of more than a few tweaks.

And I'll argue that our government fails in homeland security and disaster response. Defense, not as much, but there's a lot to be desired when you look at the VA system (you want to mix defense and health care, that's a disasterous program - although it sounds like there's elements that are perhaps getting better).

 

The government doesn't belong in any business - I'm a HUGE liberitarian when it comes to government interfereing with any element of our society, except when it comes to defense related items and homeland security (but again, that's woefully inadequate right now, IMO). Having said that, there should be protections against some of the idiocy that happens with our current health care system and get it running efficiently. If the incentives are there to straighten it out, it will happen.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And I'll argue that our government fails in homeland security and disaster response. Defense, not as much, but there's a lot to be desired when you look at the VA system (you want to mix defense and health care, that's a disasterous program - although it sounds like there's elements that are perhaps getting better).

 

The government doesn't belong in any business - I'm a HUGE liberitarian when it comes to government interfereing with any element of our society. Having said that, there should be protections against some of the idiocy that happens with our current health care system and get it running efficiently. If the incentives are there to straighten it out, it will happen.

 

But what economic incentives are there that will beat out the operant one behind the HMOs? The incentive there is basically to maximize profitability while minimizing the amount of real health care that gets dispensed.

[EvilMonkey]

But what economic incentives are there that will beat out the operant one behind the HMOs? The incentive there is basically to maximize profitability while minimizing the amount of real health care that gets dispensed.

The low-cost clinics showing up in some drug stores and such are a good place to start. People don't need doctors visits or emergency rooms for some of the more common things that the clinics can take care of. Medical savings accounts are a good way to go as well. If people have a direct interest in knowing how much their medical services cost, they can possibly have an effect in lowering those costs thru doctor shopping, etc.

[kapkomet]

The low-cost clinics showing up in some drug stores and such are a good place to start. People don't need doctors visits or emergency rooms for some of the more common things that the clinics can take care of. Medical savings accounts are a good way to go as well. If people have a direct interest in knowing how much their medical services cost, they can possibly have an effect in lowering those costs thru doctor shopping, etc.

No, Alpha, I do see the point that the catastrophic cases are a problem.

 

I do think that we need some sort of 'tier' system - I think that would help a lot. You got a sniffle, stop going to the damn ER and go to an urgent care center that is supposed to handle those sorts of things.

[EvilMonkey]

No, Alpha, I do see the point that the catastrophic cases are a problem.

 

I do think that we need some sort of 'tier' system - I think that would help a lot. You got a sniffle, stop going to the damn ER and go to an urgent care center that is supposed to handle those sorts of things.

That is pretty much what I was trying to say. The companies need to be whacked when they deny legitimate claims due to cost. but the consumer should also exercise some restraint of what they 'spend'. When it isn't directly coming out of your pocket, you don't care what it costs. The catastrophic cases are special, and do present problems. But we can continue the insurance/medical discussions elsewhere. Edwards is an empty suit and knows nothgin about the healthcare he is proposing except his talking points.

[southsider2k5]

If Moore doesn't make that film, no one would give two s***s about their health care system. What other third world s*** holes should candidates know about in regards to their health care systems? Peru? Guatemala? Find another thing, this one ain't got legs.

 

You lost me right about here... There have been plenty of people who have picked and choosed the good things about Cuba as reasons we should drop the embargo, and their health care system is always one of them. I have heard plenty of univeral health care advocates point to Cuba, Canada, and lots of the Scandanavian countries as well sited examples.

[Rex Kickass]

Health care is not why we should drop the embargo on Cuba.

 

We should drop the embargo on Cuba because it would mean the end of Castro's regime within two years.

[kapkomet]

Health care is not why we should drop the embargo on Cuba.

 

We should drop the embargo on Cuba because it would mean the end of Castro's regime within two years.

It would now... in today's environment.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Moore fills an important role. I don't like him as a person, from what I know so far. And I find his tone in his movies to be irritating. BUT... he has and does expose some factual information that many of us would not otherwise be discussing. And that can sometimes be a positive. If Sicko makes more people in this country look at how messed up our healthcare system is, then I think he has accomplished something positive (even if its done in an annoying manner).

 

[Texsox]

You lost me right about here... There have been plenty of people who have picked and choosed the good things about Cuba as reasons we should drop the embargo, and their health care system is always one of them. I have heard plenty of univeral health care advocates point to Cuba, Canada, and lots of the Scandanavian countries as well sited examples.

Commie lover

 

I'm not certain how dropping the embargo ties into a Cuban style health care system in the US. I also believe we can put together a single payer system that allows for patient choice. Actually, I see that as the only way for any changes to move forward.

[EvilMonkey]

Commie lover

 

I'm not certain how dropping the embargo ties into a Cuban style health care system in the US. I also believe we can put together a single payer system that allows for patient choice. Actually, I see that as the only way for any changes to move forward.

What do you do with all the insurance company people that will be out of work? Do they now become government employees?

[Balta1701]

What do you do with all the insurance company people that will be out of work? Do they now become government employees?

By those grounds, no business or government institution should ever do anything to make a system or operation more efficient because it could put people out of work. "Whaddya mean these computers are only 6 months old. We have to replace them now to keep the factories open!"

 

Here's the way I look at it; yes...people at insurance companies would be put out of business. But on the other hand...if you are truly moving to a system which provides lower costs for people, then those dollars that were being turned into the 30% overhead costs in our health care system or were being turned into insurance company profits will be spent by people somewhere else, and that money being spent will generate new business opportunities and new jobs in other sectors.

[kapkomet]

By those grounds, no business or government institution should ever do anything to make a system or operation more efficient because it could put people out of work. "Whaddya mean these computers are only 6 months old. We have to replace them now to keep the factories open!"

 

Here's the way I look at it; yes...people at insurance companies would be put out of business. But on the other hand...if you are truly moving to a system which provides lower costs for people, then those dollars that were being turned into the 30% overhead costs in our health care system or were being turned into insurance company profits will be spent by people somewhere else, and that money being spent will generate new business opportunities and new jobs in other sectors.

Let's always forget all the trillions of dollars that goes into research ... {{wait}}

 

 

 

***FLUSH***

 

/carry on

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

By those grounds, no business or government institution should ever do anything to make a system or operation more efficient because it could put people out of work. "Whaddya mean these computers are only 6 months old. We have to replace them now to keep the factories open!"

 

Here's the way I look at it; yes...people at insurance companies would be put out of business. But on the other hand...if you are truly moving to a system which provides lower costs for people, then those dollars that were being turned into the 30% overhead costs in our health care system or were being turned into insurance company profits will be spent by people somewhere else, and that money being spent will generate new business opportunities and new jobs in other sectors.

Way to really over-generalize there. I think that is a fair question to ask, and the effects that it will have. You dump several million people into unemployment, that would really hurt the economy, alot faster than whatever savings you are imagining would help. And if you think that the government will be running the industry at less than 30% overhead, you are smoking some strong stuff. The only way they would get there is by hiring half as many people and taking twice as long to get anything done, while paying them like crap until they unionize and strike for better pay and less hours, new ergonomic chairs and Starbucks coffee in the breakrooms. Then they will get hit with lawsuits because they didn't hire enough minorities, and soon you have an organization as f***ed up as the postal service, constantly raising prices while becoming the nations biggest minority employer, saddled with an unresponsive union, skyrocketing wages, bloated inefficiencies and no incentive to do better since there is no competition except for the super rich who can afford private healthcare, even after the huge tax increases needed to pay for the broken government run one.

[Balta1701]

Except of course...Medicare already runs with dramatically less than the overhead that we see with private insurers in almost any way you look at it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Except of course...Medicare already runs with dramatically less than the overhead that we see with private insurers in almost any way you look at it.

Is that the case? I have to admit ignorance on how exactly Medicare works, so I should go do some homework.

 

[Balta1701]

Since there's been quite a bit of discussion here involving the whole general concept of whether or not people will over-spend on health care if it's totally free or whether there should be some sort of cost barrier making it so that people have a reason to be conservative about when they use the health care system to save money, I thought this piece was on-topic.

The moral-hazard argument makes sense, however, only if we consume health care in the same way that we consume other consumer goods, and to economists like Nyman this assumption is plainly absurd. We go to the doctor grudgingly, only because we’re sick. “Moral hazard is overblown,” the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says. “You always hear that the demand for health care is unlimited. This is just not true. People who are very well insured, who are very rich, do you see them check into the hospital because it’s free? Do people really like to go to the doctor? Do they check into the hospital instead of playing golf?”

 

For that matter, when you have to pay for your own health care, does your consumption really become more efficient? In the late nineteen-seventies, the rand Corporation did an extensive study on the question, randomly assigning families to health plans with co-payment levels at zero per cent, twenty-five per cent, fifty per cent, or ninety-five per cent, up to six thousand dollars. As you might expect, the more that people were asked to chip in for their health care the less care they used. The problem was that they cut back equally on both frivolous care and useful care. Poor people in the high-deductible group with hypertension, for instance, didn’t do nearly as good a job of controlling their blood pressure as those in other groups, resulting in a ten-per-cent increase in the likelihood of death. As a recent Commonwealth Fund study concluded, cost sharing is “a blunt instrument.” Of course it is: how should the average consumer be expected to know beforehand what care is frivolous and what care is useful? I just went to the dermatologist to get moles checked for skin cancer. If I had had to pay a hundred per cent, or even fifty per cent, of the cost of the visit, I might not have gone. Would that have been a wise decision? I have no idea. But if one of those moles really is cancerous, that simple, inexpensive visit could save the health-care system tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention saving me a great deal of heartbreak). The focus on moral hazard suggests that the changes we make in our behavior when we have insurance are nearly always wasteful. Yet, when it comes to health care, many of the things we do only because we have insurance—like getting our moles checked, or getting our teeth cleaned regularly, or getting a mammogram or engaging in other routine preventive care—are anything but wasteful and inefficient. In fact, they are behaviors that could end up saving the health-care system a good deal of money.

[StrangeSox]

Assuming that health care is a normal good is a pretty poor assumption. Nice article, Balta.

[Texsox]

What do you do with all the insurance company people that will be out of work? Do they now become government employees?

 

I would imagine that many would, in fact, they could compete for government contracts for case management, etc. I also think we have a much too low opinions of government workers and too high an opinion of private sector employees. Unions are in both the private and public sector, as are good and bad employees. I've had many more poor experiences with clerks in stores than postal employees, for example. I've met many more good cops than bad. Then there is Nuke, so maybe our opinion of government workers sucking off the public teat is valid

[Balta1701]

By the way...tonight we get Barack Obama on the Daily Show, followed by the Colbert/Branson interview trainwreck.

 

Madness!

 

Anywho, I'm really hoping that at some point, one of the Dem frontrunners decides to gamble on a Colbert appearance. That would show some balls, I tell ya what.

[southsider2k5]

Except of course...Medicare already runs with dramatically less than the overhead that we see with private insurers in almost any way you look at it.

 

So will expanding the program by a big mulitple of people is going to make sure that it still runs that way?

[Balta1701]

So will expanding the program by a big mulitple of people is going to make sure that it still runs that way?

Medicare already has an enormous number of people in it. That's actually one of the advantages of Medicare; it's sort of the economy of scale thing. So many people use it that doctors just know how it's going to work; you don't have a doctor who has to fill out the forms for 6 different insurance companies to authorize one treatment. Adding more people in might well actually reduce the overhead per person or the overhead per treatment, because the system already exists and is built to handle huge numbers of people.

[kapkomet]

Medicare already has an enormous number of people in it. That's actually one of the advantages of Medicare; it's sort of the economy of scale thing. So many people use it that doctors just know how it's going to work; you don't have a doctor who has to fill out the forms for 6 different insurance companies to authorize one treatment. Adding more people in might well actually reduce the overhead per person or the overhead per treatment, because the system already exists and is built to handle huge numbers of people.

 

Wow.

 

The whole f***ing population of the United States should work for the government, and there should be caps on what any one person can make. Incentive for no one, yea China!

 

[Balta1701]

 

Wow.

 

The whole f***ing population of the United States should work for the government, and there should be caps on what any one person can make. Incentive for no one, yea China!

Link

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

 

Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope

 

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

 

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.