Healthcare is not a right!?

[KSMountain]

[quote=NeetaT]Healthcare is a service that is priced via supply and demand just like other goods and services.[/quote]
I don’t know whether this is true, but it should be. And we should take steps to make it true.

[quote=NeetaT]No one will ever agree with me, but I know that if there was no such thing as health insurance, prices for health services would adjust to average income, thus more people could afford it out of pocket.[/quote]
I kind of agree with you. For other services, we pay when rendered. For example car repair, or plumbing, or whatever. I think the whole “insurance” thing confuses the issue and masks the costs.

[quote=NeetaT]I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]
Well, you would while you’re young and healthy.

Here’s a question: is “health insurance” really code for “I’d like to receive more healthcare than I pay for.”? For example, it seems to me most people want about $0.5M lifetime worth of healthcare (especially counting end of life costs), but they’d like to only pay maybe $50K over their lifetime. If everyone in the country gets ten times more than they put it in, the thing cannot work.

For other kinds of insurance, say Auto, Fire, earthquake, flood, theft, etc, you don’t really expect to use it. The system works because in aggregate folks put in much more than is taken out. The moment that ceases to be the case you don’t have solvent insurance companies.

Is “health insurance” then different? Aren’t we really talking about “health subsidy”?

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door.[/quote]

I was just answering the question – “is health-care a right.” Whatever fantasy you are talking about that involves guns isn’t one I share. You are thinking “anarchy” I believe.

Just as a general comment, I also think it is a big mistake to mix welfare and the health-care market in one big “reform” package.

Even if health-care is a right, it makes sense to keep the health-care market a free market, but to separately allow for charitable and government organizations to help people afford the market-based services.

This keeps the market efficient and inexpensive while providing funds to the needy to navigate the market.

In other words, if the government wants to force charity, they should just wrestle cash from the taxpayers and pass it along to poor people in need.

Food stamps are welfare, but at least food stamps keep the food market a clean market. They aren’t in there, trying to regulate food prices, dictate the kind of food provided, etc, which would hose-up the market for everyone else.

With health-care, they mush welfare and market mechanisms together and the market gets completely hosed up and we end up with disasters.

You can always provide health-care to all by simply giving the poor people money to spend on health-care. This is independent from fixing the mess of a health-care system we have – which involves insurance requirements, medical licensing, the FDA, and, as I see it, the whole industry is a government-regulated monopoly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door.[/quote]

I was just answering the question – “is health-care a right.” Whatever fantasy you are talking about that involves guns isn’t one I share. You are thinking “anarchy” I believe.

Just as a general comment, I also think it is a big mistake to mix welfare and the health-care market in one big “reform” package.

Even if health-care is a right, it makes sense to keep the health-care market a free market, but to separately allow for charitable and government organizations to help people afford the market-based services.

This keeps the market efficient and inexpensive while providing funds to the needy to navigate the market.

In other words, if the government wants to force charity, they should just wrestle cash from the taxpayers and pass it along to poor people in need.

Food stamps are welfare, but at least food stamps keep the food market a clean market. They aren’t in there, trying to regulate food prices, dictate the kind of food provided, etc, which would hose-up the market for everyone else.

With health-care, they mush welfare and market mechanisms together and the market gets completely hosed up and we end up with disasters.

You can always provide health-care to all by simply giving the poor people money to spend on health-care. This is independent from fixing the mess of a health-care system we have – which involves insurance requirements, medical licensing, the FDA, and, as I see it, the whole industry is a government-regulated monopoly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door.[/quote]

I was just answering the question – “is health-care a right.” Whatever fantasy you are talking about that involves guns isn’t one I share. You are thinking “anarchy” I believe.

Just as a general comment, I also think it is a big mistake to mix welfare and the health-care market in one big “reform” package.

Even if health-care is a right, it makes sense to keep the health-care market a free market, but to separately allow for charitable and government organizations to help people afford the market-based services.

This keeps the market efficient and inexpensive while providing funds to the needy to navigate the market.

In other words, if the government wants to force charity, they should just wrestle cash from the taxpayers and pass it along to poor people in need.

Food stamps are welfare, but at least food stamps keep the food market a clean market. They aren’t in there, trying to regulate food prices, dictate the kind of food provided, etc, which would hose-up the market for everyone else.

With health-care, they mush welfare and market mechanisms together and the market gets completely hosed up and we end up with disasters.

You can always provide health-care to all by simply giving the poor people money to spend on health-care. This is independent from fixing the mess of a health-care system we have – which involves insurance requirements, medical licensing, the FDA, and, as I see it, the whole industry is a government-regulated monopoly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door.[/quote]

I was just answering the question – “is health-care a right.” Whatever fantasy you are talking about that involves guns isn’t one I share. You are thinking “anarchy” I believe.

Just as a general comment, I also think it is a big mistake to mix welfare and the health-care market in one big “reform” package.

Even if health-care is a right, it makes sense to keep the health-care market a free market, but to separately allow for charitable and government organizations to help people afford the market-based services.

This keeps the market efficient and inexpensive while providing funds to the needy to navigate the market.

In other words, if the government wants to force charity, they should just wrestle cash from the taxpayers and pass it along to poor people in need.

Food stamps are welfare, but at least food stamps keep the food market a clean market. They aren’t in there, trying to regulate food prices, dictate the kind of food provided, etc, which would hose-up the market for everyone else.

With health-care, they mush welfare and market mechanisms together and the market gets completely hosed up and we end up with disasters.

You can always provide health-care to all by simply giving the poor people money to spend on health-care. This is independent from fixing the mess of a health-care system we have – which involves insurance requirements, medical licensing, the FDA, and, as I see it, the whole industry is a government-regulated monopoly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]I’d rather do that then live in the Libertarian Fantasyland where I have to worry about getting shot every time I walk out the door.[/quote]

I was just answering the question – “is health-care a right.” Whatever fantasy you are talking about that involves guns isn’t one I share. You are thinking “anarchy” I believe.

Just as a general comment, I also think it is a big mistake to mix welfare and the health-care market in one big “reform” package.

Even if health-care is a right, it makes sense to keep the health-care market a free market, but to separately allow for charitable and government organizations to help people afford the market-based services.

This keeps the market efficient and inexpensive while providing funds to the needy to navigate the market.

In other words, if the government wants to force charity, they should just wrestle cash from the taxpayers and pass it along to poor people in need.

Food stamps are welfare, but at least food stamps keep the food market a clean market. They aren’t in there, trying to regulate food prices, dictate the kind of food provided, etc, which would hose-up the market for everyone else.

With health-care, they mush welfare and market mechanisms together and the market gets completely hosed up and we end up with disasters.

You can always provide health-care to all by simply giving the poor people money to spend on health-care. This is independent from fixing the mess of a health-care system we have – which involves insurance requirements, medical licensing, the FDA, and, as I see it, the whole industry is a government-regulated monopoly.

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[Author]

Posts