Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
Why on earth should health care - a life sustaining necessity for everyone - be handled by for-profit insurance companies??
|
Gosh, I don't know......why don't you apply some Critical Thinking to find the answer?
Do you have right to live forever?
No, you don't. And for the same reason, you have no right to health care either.
Back to the Critical Thinking thing.....Are health care resources unlimited? Infinite? Never-ending?
No, they aren't. Health care resources are no different than any other resources on Earth. You have a limited amount of investment Capital for health care; a limited amount of Research & Development Capital; a limited amount of labor Capital; a limited amount of production capacity; a limited amount of money; and many other limited aspects, such as time.
So........continuing our line of Critical Thinking....how do we distribute health care resources in the most efficient manner, since such resources are very limited?
Would a Property Theory help us? Nope. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are no help here.
What about Economic Systems, like the Free Market, the Command System or the Traditional System?
Yes, they would help us, since the sole purpose of an Economic System is to distribute resources efficiently by addressing three basic questions:
1] What shall we produce?
2] How shall we produce it?
3] For whom shall we produce?
However, since health care is largely a service, and produces nothing...
1] What services shall we provide?
2] How shall we provide those services?
3] For whom shall we provide services?
Since 1939, the health care system in America has been a Soviet-style Command Economic-based System.
It has failed miserably and does a great disservice to everyone.
The solution is to undo the damage caused by Special Interest Groups functioning as the Command Group in a Soviet-style Command Economic System, by eliminating coercive laws and regulations.
Approximately 3/5ths of the World still operates using the Traditional System (or an hybrid). These are mostly tribal and clan based societies in the 5 Central Asian States, in Southwest Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc). Southeast Asia (Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines), African States (including Northern Africa and sub-Saharan Africa), South America (Brasil, and the areas along the Andes Mountain Range), and North America (a small number of tribal groups in Canada and the US).
The beauty of Economics and Economic Systems, is that they are the answer to the Questions.
1] What health care services shall we provide?
Tradition will decide.
Well, traditions are great for a clan or tribal-based society. That might even fly for a nation. Possibly even for a nation-State, but for a country as diverse and heterogeneous as the US, that would never work.
1] What health care services shall we provide?
The Command Group will decide.
Like Socialist Property Theory where the Agent of Socialism need not be the government, the same is also true for the Command Economic System. The Command Group is often the government, or an oligarchy or bureaucracy within the government, but not necessarily so....it can be any group....any quasi-governmental organization, non-governmental organization, or a Special Interest Group.
In the United States, the primary Command Group is a Special Interest Group, namely the American Hospital Association.
1] What health care services shall we provide?
The American Hospital Association will decide.
That became reality in 1939, when the American Hospital Association began dictating to member-hospitals what health care services it must provide for its pre-paid hospitalization plans, and also dictated the price of those services. The American Hospital Association organized member-hospitals into groups to compete against non-member hospitals in an attempt to gain Monopoly Control over health care in the United States.
3] For whom shall we provide health care services?
The American Hospital Association will decide
That also became reality in 1939. When the American Hospital Association grouped hospitals together to stifle competition and stamp out non-member hospitals.
Those hospitals operating under the aegis of the American Hospital Association would provide services to any person who had a pre-paid hospitalization plan from another member-hospital....
...but not from a non-member hospital.
That's where your stupid "Out-of-Network" restrictions, fees and charges come from.
The "Out-of-Network" scheme was solidified in 1946, when the American Hospital Association's committee that controlled and interfered with health care officially became the Blue Cross health insurance company.
1] What health care services shall we provide?
The [Free] Market will decide.
3] For whom shall we provide health care services?
The [Free] Market will decide.
But that is not happening.....it has not been happening since 1939 (actually since 1933).
The Market consists of Consumers of various classes: individuals, households, groups, businesses and even government.
You --- as an individual Consumer and part of the Free Market -- should be deciding what health care services are provided for you...and perhaps your family....but not for me or anyone else.
2] How shall we provide health care services?
The American Hospital Association will decide.
Without your input, knowledge or consent, the American Hospital Association decided that your health care services should be provided through your employer.
What does the Free Market say? The Free Market --- individuals, households and such -- would prefer to obtain their health care services through their own choosing....but that right was taken away from you.
Why aren't you mad about that? In fact, why aren't you angry that groups like the American Hospital Association are interfering in your life and taking away your right to choose?
Because the American Hospital Association took away your right to choose, many Americans were left without health care plans....and that caused another Command Group to interfere....your government.
Your government sided with the American Hospital Association and agreed that health care should be provided through your employer, and then your government did this...
2] How shall we provide health care services?
The Government will decide.
....and that's how you ended up with Medicare and Medicaid.
Which brings us to this...
3] For whom shall we provide health care services?
The American Hospital Association and the Government will decide
Again, that's why you have Medicare and Medicaid. If you had this....
1] What health care services shall we provide?
The [Free] Market will decide.
2] How shall we provide health care services?
The [Free] Market will decide.
3] For whom shall we provide health care services?
The [Free] Market will decide.
...then everyone would have health care services, and there would no need for Medicaid or Medicare, or any other stupidity.
The minute you stop violating the Laws of Economics.....you find that your life is so much better....and that health care is affordable and available to everyone.
But let's not beat around the bush or mince words: You and everyone like you are being incredibly disingenuous, and worse than that, totally dishonest.
This....
$6 for 21 Days of Hospitalization
...was the terms of [one of] the first employer sponsored health care plans (between Baylor University Medical Hospital and Dallas Public Schools in 1929).....and it is insurance.
What the American Hospital Association did via its lobbying efforts for changes in the IRS tax code in 1954 was this....
$6 for 21 Days to Unknown Number of Days of Hospitalization
....and that is not insurance --- that is fee-for-service.
This is what Obamacareâ„¢ does....
$6 for Infinite Days of Hospitalization
....and that is not insurance either.....that is stupid and costly.
Which brings us to the disingenuous and dishonest nature of cry-babies, because what you really want is this...
$1 for Infinite Days of Hospitalization
....and the sad thing is that you have this misguided false belief that Euro-style health care systems work just like that --- they don't.
I'm part of a minority school that says any combination of health care spending and government spending that is ~>= 50% of the GDP results in stagnant/recessionary economies.
The cost of health care is the same all over the world. What appear to be differences in cost, are not really differences at all, rather they are relative differences related to the purchasing power, cost-of-living, and other economic factors, especially as they relate to Capital....WorkingClassHero points that out quite often.
If you do doubt even for the slightest second.....
Expenditure of selected health care functions by providers of health care, per inhabitant [hlth_sha1h]
Last update 25.10.11
Extracted on 06.01.13
Source of Data Eurostat
UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HC Health care expenditure
ICHA_HP All providers of health care
Romania.......310.39
South Korea....... 837.74
Slovakia....... 1,060.60
Denmark....... 4,643.97
Switzerland....... 5,215.64
Norway....... 5,343.49
Luxembourg....... 5,438.46
United States....... 5,684.68
I just totally trashed every argument for universal care. How about that? I'm not done....having trashed the argument, now I will burn it....
UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HF General government
Romania....... 241.10
South Korea....... 473.18
Slovakia....... 690.87
United States....... 2,657.86
Switzerland .......3,114.60
Denmark .......3,775.17
Luxembourg .......4,105.86
Norway .......4,195.13
Having trashed and burned the argument for universal health care, I will bury it...
UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95
Slovakia .......268.80
South Korea .......271.69
Denmark....... 611.68
Luxembourg .......680.76
United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54
Switzerland....... 1,590.18
No, I didn’t stutter…..those are out-of-pocket expenses.
Database
Source: EuroStat - The European Commission of the European Union.
What Euro-States do....well, I just let the German Minister of Health explain it to you in his own words...
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent. -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Health care is pointless.....it consumes resources and provides very little in return --- assuming you look at it from an objective point of view. You cannot eat health care; cannot put health care in your car and drive it; cannot heat your home with health care; cannot power your country with health care; cannot wear health care; and you cannot trade health care.
Nonetheless, health care is necessary to a point, and that point is about, oh, I don't know, ~8% of your GDP.
More than that is harmful to your economy. Health care in Europe is not cheaper nor does it cost less, but they do spend less, and the reason they spend less is because they budget less.
Again, if you do doubt for even one second.....then read and weep...if you have the courage...
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
The delay between the first hospital visit and starting treatment was 35-187 days (median 94);
Limited access to specialists is the reason most often advanced for the poor performance of the UK in treating lung cancer. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
Lung cancer treatment waiting tim... [Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study
However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study
Mortality on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting: incidence and risk factors
Helena Rexius, MDa, Gunnar Brandrup-Wognsen, MD, PhDa, Anders Odén, PhDa, Anders Jeppsson, MD, PhD*a
a Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Accepted for publication May 2, 2003.
* Address reprint requests to Dr Jeppsson, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
e-mail:
anders.jeppsson@vgregion.se
BACKGROUND: Insufficient capacity for coronary artery bypass grafting results in waiting times before operation, prioritization of patients and, ultimately, death on the waiting list. We aimed to calculate waiting list mortality and to identify risk factors for death on the waiting list.
If Euro-States truly are paying the full cost of health care, then why are there waiting lists?
Why do people die
waiting to get treatment?
Why do European and Canadian governments ration health care?
Why do European and Canadian governments deny health care treatment?
Why do European and Canadian governments delay health care treatment?
Why do European and Canadian governments dilute health care treatment to the point of being totally ineffective?
If those governments were paying the true cost of health care, none of that would happen.
But they cannot afford to pay the true cost, and so people die.
Your question was....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
Why on earth should health care - a life sustaining necessity for everyone - be handled by for-profit insurance companies??
|
What I'm smelling is that you would rather have your government deny you treatment, delay your treatment, or dilute your treatment, instead of having for-profit insurance companies spend $8 Million treating you before cutting you off.
That makes a whole of freaking sense:
"I'm mad because for-profit insurance companies spent $8 Million to treat me and then cut me off, so I want a national health plan so the government will spend $0 before cutting me off."
Aren't you the brilliant one.
One more thing.....what gives you the right to consume more heath care resources than anyone else?
Asked and answered...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
