Healthcare is not a right!?

[afx114]

Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!

Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]
Urban,
I am pretty bad at explaining can I try again?

I think a big part of the tea party movement believes opposite of what you are asserting. [/quote]They aren’t complaining that the government is acting wrongly?
I am pretty sure they are.
[quote=aldante]Since there is not a dogma there are many people in the movement – we all do not protest the same thing. [/quote]In any movement there is diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Solidarity is how movements succeed (Obama) and splintering or bimodalism is how they fail (Gore/Nader). I see your point in that but I think it would be fair to label a few salient aspects of the tea party movement:

1:They feel they are being taxed unfairly (hence the cheesy borrowing from the sons of liberty)

2:They are usually, though not exclusively, critical of current government spending practices

3:They oppose “wealth redistribution” (see 1 and 2).

4:They are disillusioned at the current lineup of of government decision-makers

Is this set of common characteristics inaccurate?
[quote=aldante]People like me did not lose an election – we believe that our country is being lost. [/quote]I get that the government is doing things you don’t like. But how is raising the marginal tax rate to that of the Clinton-era “losing the country”? I mean that just seems like a silly statement.
[quote=aldante] Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me think that is already gone: healthcare a right? the constitution a relic?[/quote] I am not clear how the Constitution is a relic or where that has been stated or implied. I also don’t think there is a strong constituency suggesting that socialized healthcare is a right. Most, like me, just think reform makes better economic sense than using more expensive ER’s as a solution.
[quote=aldante] Then what do we stand for mob rule? Do you realize that after WWII we helped rebuild Europe for $5billion? We gave one company $300 billion and another company $160 billion?
[/quote]
So your point is that banking systems in 2009 cost more than hiring carpenters in 1945? On this we agree. And we stand for majority rule with minority rights.
[quote=aldante]
WE are being robbed by the governing class who are giving fat paydays to their buddies from the Ivy League. Healthcare is the “cake” that the population “gets as a Christmas gift”.
[/quote]
An elected governing body who we have the right to check every 1-4 years (depending on which part).
I recommend voting.
Its more effective than rambling.
[quote=aldante]
Who here gives a christmas gift to someone then tells the reciepient they have to pay for it now and the present comes 4 years later???????
[/quote]
Its a public good and not a gift. I personally don’t think of the congress as Santa but you are entitled to do so.
[quote=aldante]
Declare independence? Why? Its our country. The country is being stolen by a group of oligarchs who view themselves as better then you or I. This is specifically why the Constitution is not only relevant but the document we should look too for hope. That document is worth fighting for.
Revolution? I hope not. Changing the “cake”mentality God I hope so. The state does not have the right to our property. We give our property to the state to justly protect our rights.[/quote]

If you really have the courage of your convictions and if you feel that the president is destroying the country, then for fuck’s sake do something other than rip off a legitimate revolution. Load a truck with explosives or storm the capital or rape Hank Greenberg’s dog or something.

Or you can admit you are just like every other American and vote.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]
Urban,
I am pretty bad at explaining can I try again?

I think a big part of the tea party movement believes opposite of what you are asserting. [/quote]They aren’t complaining that the government is acting wrongly?
I am pretty sure they are.
[quote=aldante]Since there is not a dogma there are many people in the movement – we all do not protest the same thing. [/quote]In any movement there is diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Solidarity is how movements succeed (Obama) and splintering or bimodalism is how they fail (Gore/Nader). I see your point in that but I think it would be fair to label a few salient aspects of the tea party movement:

1:They feel they are being taxed unfairly (hence the cheesy borrowing from the sons of liberty)

2:They are usually, though not exclusively, critical of current government spending practices

3:They oppose “wealth redistribution” (see 1 and 2).

4:They are disillusioned at the current lineup of of government decision-makers

Is this set of common characteristics inaccurate?
[quote=aldante]People like me did not lose an election – we believe that our country is being lost. [/quote]I get that the government is doing things you don’t like. But how is raising the marginal tax rate to that of the Clinton-era “losing the country”? I mean that just seems like a silly statement.
[quote=aldante] Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me think that is already gone: healthcare a right? the constitution a relic?[/quote] I am not clear how the Constitution is a relic or where that has been stated or implied. I also don’t think there is a strong constituency suggesting that socialized healthcare is a right. Most, like me, just think reform makes better economic sense than using more expensive ER’s as a solution.
[quote=aldante] Then what do we stand for mob rule? Do you realize that after WWII we helped rebuild Europe for $5billion? We gave one company $300 billion and another company $160 billion?
[/quote]
So your point is that banking systems in 2009 cost more than hiring carpenters in 1945? On this we agree. And we stand for majority rule with minority rights.
[quote=aldante]
WE are being robbed by the governing class who are giving fat paydays to their buddies from the Ivy League. Healthcare is the “cake” that the population “gets as a Christmas gift”.
[/quote]
An elected governing body who we have the right to check every 1-4 years (depending on which part).
I recommend voting.
Its more effective than rambling.
[quote=aldante]
Who here gives a christmas gift to someone then tells the reciepient they have to pay for it now and the present comes 4 years later???????
[/quote]
Its a public good and not a gift. I personally don’t think of the congress as Santa but you are entitled to do so.
[quote=aldante]
Declare independence? Why? Its our country. The country is being stolen by a group of oligarchs who view themselves as better then you or I. This is specifically why the Constitution is not only relevant but the document we should look too for hope. That document is worth fighting for.
Revolution? I hope not. Changing the “cake”mentality God I hope so. The state does not have the right to our property. We give our property to the state to justly protect our rights.[/quote]

If you really have the courage of your convictions and if you feel that the president is destroying the country, then for fuck’s sake do something other than rip off a legitimate revolution. Load a truck with explosives or storm the capital or rape Hank Greenberg’s dog or something.

Or you can admit you are just like every other American and vote.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]
Urban,
I am pretty bad at explaining can I try again?

I think a big part of the tea party movement believes opposite of what you are asserting. [/quote]They aren’t complaining that the government is acting wrongly?
I am pretty sure they are.
[quote=aldante]Since there is not a dogma there are many people in the movement – we all do not protest the same thing. [/quote]In any movement there is diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Solidarity is how movements succeed (Obama) and splintering or bimodalism is how they fail (Gore/Nader). I see your point in that but I think it would be fair to label a few salient aspects of the tea party movement:

1:They feel they are being taxed unfairly (hence the cheesy borrowing from the sons of liberty)

2:They are usually, though not exclusively, critical of current government spending practices

3:They oppose “wealth redistribution” (see 1 and 2).

4:They are disillusioned at the current lineup of of government decision-makers

Is this set of common characteristics inaccurate?
[quote=aldante]People like me did not lose an election – we believe that our country is being lost. [/quote]I get that the government is doing things you don’t like. But how is raising the marginal tax rate to that of the Clinton-era “losing the country”? I mean that just seems like a silly statement.
[quote=aldante] Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me think that is already gone: healthcare a right? the constitution a relic?[/quote] I am not clear how the Constitution is a relic or where that has been stated or implied. I also don’t think there is a strong constituency suggesting that socialized healthcare is a right. Most, like me, just think reform makes better economic sense than using more expensive ER’s as a solution.
[quote=aldante] Then what do we stand for mob rule? Do you realize that after WWII we helped rebuild Europe for $5billion? We gave one company $300 billion and another company $160 billion?
[/quote]
So your point is that banking systems in 2009 cost more than hiring carpenters in 1945? On this we agree. And we stand for majority rule with minority rights.
[quote=aldante]
WE are being robbed by the governing class who are giving fat paydays to their buddies from the Ivy League. Healthcare is the “cake” that the population “gets as a Christmas gift”.
[/quote]
An elected governing body who we have the right to check every 1-4 years (depending on which part).
I recommend voting.
Its more effective than rambling.
[quote=aldante]
Who here gives a christmas gift to someone then tells the reciepient they have to pay for it now and the present comes 4 years later???????
[/quote]
Its a public good and not a gift. I personally don’t think of the congress as Santa but you are entitled to do so.
[quote=aldante]
Declare independence? Why? Its our country. The country is being stolen by a group of oligarchs who view themselves as better then you or I. This is specifically why the Constitution is not only relevant but the document we should look too for hope. That document is worth fighting for.
Revolution? I hope not. Changing the “cake”mentality God I hope so. The state does not have the right to our property. We give our property to the state to justly protect our rights.[/quote]

If you really have the courage of your convictions and if you feel that the president is destroying the country, then for fuck’s sake do something other than rip off a legitimate revolution. Load a truck with explosives or storm the capital or rape Hank Greenberg’s dog or something.

Or you can admit you are just like every other American and vote.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]
Urban,
I am pretty bad at explaining can I try again?

I think a big part of the tea party movement believes opposite of what you are asserting. [/quote]They aren’t complaining that the government is acting wrongly?
I am pretty sure they are.
[quote=aldante]Since there is not a dogma there are many people in the movement – we all do not protest the same thing. [/quote]In any movement there is diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Solidarity is how movements succeed (Obama) and splintering or bimodalism is how they fail (Gore/Nader). I see your point in that but I think it would be fair to label a few salient aspects of the tea party movement:

1:They feel they are being taxed unfairly (hence the cheesy borrowing from the sons of liberty)

2:They are usually, though not exclusively, critical of current government spending practices

3:They oppose “wealth redistribution” (see 1 and 2).

4:They are disillusioned at the current lineup of of government decision-makers

Is this set of common characteristics inaccurate?
[quote=aldante]People like me did not lose an election – we believe that our country is being lost. [/quote]I get that the government is doing things you don’t like. But how is raising the marginal tax rate to that of the Clinton-era “losing the country”? I mean that just seems like a silly statement.
[quote=aldante] Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me think that is already gone: healthcare a right? the constitution a relic?[/quote] I am not clear how the Constitution is a relic or where that has been stated or implied. I also don’t think there is a strong constituency suggesting that socialized healthcare is a right. Most, like me, just think reform makes better economic sense than using more expensive ER’s as a solution.
[quote=aldante] Then what do we stand for mob rule? Do you realize that after WWII we helped rebuild Europe for $5billion? We gave one company $300 billion and another company $160 billion?
[/quote]
So your point is that banking systems in 2009 cost more than hiring carpenters in 1945? On this we agree. And we stand for majority rule with minority rights.
[quote=aldante]
WE are being robbed by the governing class who are giving fat paydays to their buddies from the Ivy League. Healthcare is the “cake” that the population “gets as a Christmas gift”.
[/quote]
An elected governing body who we have the right to check every 1-4 years (depending on which part).
I recommend voting.
Its more effective than rambling.
[quote=aldante]
Who here gives a christmas gift to someone then tells the reciepient they have to pay for it now and the present comes 4 years later???????
[/quote]
Its a public good and not a gift. I personally don’t think of the congress as Santa but you are entitled to do so.
[quote=aldante]
Declare independence? Why? Its our country. The country is being stolen by a group of oligarchs who view themselves as better then you or I. This is specifically why the Constitution is not only relevant but the document we should look too for hope. That document is worth fighting for.
Revolution? I hope not. Changing the “cake”mentality God I hope so. The state does not have the right to our property. We give our property to the state to justly protect our rights.[/quote]

If you really have the courage of your convictions and if you feel that the president is destroying the country, then for fuck’s sake do something other than rip off a legitimate revolution. Load a truck with explosives or storm the capital or rape Hank Greenberg’s dog or something.

Or you can admit you are just like every other American and vote.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]
Urban,
I am pretty bad at explaining can I try again?

I think a big part of the tea party movement believes opposite of what you are asserting. [/quote]They aren’t complaining that the government is acting wrongly?
I am pretty sure they are.
[quote=aldante]Since there is not a dogma there are many people in the movement – we all do not protest the same thing. [/quote]In any movement there is diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Solidarity is how movements succeed (Obama) and splintering or bimodalism is how they fail (Gore/Nader). I see your point in that but I think it would be fair to label a few salient aspects of the tea party movement:

1:They feel they are being taxed unfairly (hence the cheesy borrowing from the sons of liberty)

2:They are usually, though not exclusively, critical of current government spending practices

3:They oppose “wealth redistribution” (see 1 and 2).

4:They are disillusioned at the current lineup of of government decision-makers

Is this set of common characteristics inaccurate?
[quote=aldante]People like me did not lose an election – we believe that our country is being lost. [/quote]I get that the government is doing things you don’t like. But how is raising the marginal tax rate to that of the Clinton-era “losing the country”? I mean that just seems like a silly statement.
[quote=aldante] Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me think that is already gone: healthcare a right? the constitution a relic?[/quote] I am not clear how the Constitution is a relic or where that has been stated or implied. I also don’t think there is a strong constituency suggesting that socialized healthcare is a right. Most, like me, just think reform makes better economic sense than using more expensive ER’s as a solution.
[quote=aldante] Then what do we stand for mob rule? Do you realize that after WWII we helped rebuild Europe for $5billion? We gave one company $300 billion and another company $160 billion?
[/quote]
So your point is that banking systems in 2009 cost more than hiring carpenters in 1945? On this we agree. And we stand for majority rule with minority rights.
[quote=aldante]
WE are being robbed by the governing class who are giving fat paydays to their buddies from the Ivy League. Healthcare is the “cake” that the population “gets as a Christmas gift”.
[/quote]
An elected governing body who we have the right to check every 1-4 years (depending on which part).
I recommend voting.
Its more effective than rambling.
[quote=aldante]
Who here gives a christmas gift to someone then tells the reciepient they have to pay for it now and the present comes 4 years later???????
[/quote]
Its a public good and not a gift. I personally don’t think of the congress as Santa but you are entitled to do so.
[quote=aldante]
Declare independence? Why? Its our country. The country is being stolen by a group of oligarchs who view themselves as better then you or I. This is specifically why the Constitution is not only relevant but the document we should look too for hope. That document is worth fighting for.
Revolution? I hope not. Changing the “cake”mentality God I hope so. The state does not have the right to our property. We give our property to the state to justly protect our rights.[/quote]

If you really have the courage of your convictions and if you feel that the president is destroying the country, then for fuck’s sake do something other than rip off a legitimate revolution. Load a truck with explosives or storm the capital or rape Hank Greenberg’s dog or something.

Or you can admit you are just like every other American and vote.

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[scaredyclassic]

all this spirited debate seems very hopeful and democratic and american. personally, i am starting to think the “not voting” option may be the only meaningful way to dissent. if enough people lost interest, then maybe things would actually change. or maybe not. i looka t my ballots lately in complete puzzlement, no sense of any mark i could make on it necessarily meaning anything. hope no one is giving themselves an ulcer over any of this, as i don’t want my insurance bill to go up to pay for it. please, for god’s sake, and our mutual pocketbooks, take care of yourselves!

[scaredyclassic]

all this spirited debate seems very hopeful and democratic and american. personally, i am starting to think the “not voting” option may be the only meaningful way to dissent. if enough people lost interest, then maybe things would actually change. or maybe not. i looka t my ballots lately in complete puzzlement, no sense of any mark i could make on it necessarily meaning anything. hope no one is giving themselves an ulcer over any of this, as i don’t want my insurance bill to go up to pay for it. please, for god’s sake, and our mutual pocketbooks, take care of yourselves!

[scaredyclassic]

all this spirited debate seems very hopeful and democratic and american. personally, i am starting to think the “not voting” option may be the only meaningful way to dissent. if enough people lost interest, then maybe things would actually change. or maybe not. i looka t my ballots lately in complete puzzlement, no sense of any mark i could make on it necessarily meaning anything. hope no one is giving themselves an ulcer over any of this, as i don’t want my insurance bill to go up to pay for it. please, for god’s sake, and our mutual pocketbooks, take care of yourselves!

[scaredyclassic]

all this spirited debate seems very hopeful and democratic and american. personally, i am starting to think the “not voting” option may be the only meaningful way to dissent. if enough people lost interest, then maybe things would actually change. or maybe not. i looka t my ballots lately in complete puzzlement, no sense of any mark i could make on it necessarily meaning anything. hope no one is giving themselves an ulcer over any of this, as i don’t want my insurance bill to go up to pay for it. please, for god’s sake, and our mutual pocketbooks, take care of yourselves!

[Author]

Posts