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.
Why, then, obviously, the National Debt will increase.
At least the National Debt will be for something worthwhile!
Or, perhaps, taxes will increase.
Again, the increase will be for something worthwhile!
"Associates" in the FOOMP offices will do one thing, and one thing ONLY: They will write and send checks for medical payments.
Tends not to work very well with government. IRS is supposed to collect legitimately owed debt to the United States, yet decided to harrass conservatives.
Prior to the advent of more modern medicine, before the '60's, there just wasn't much we could do medically and surgically that was drastically complicated yet commonly needed, useful and expensive. Like a heart valve or bypass procedure. Medicine and surgery in general, so then third parties had little to offer.
The reason we have HC insurance and central social supports like Medicare today is because things like a heart surgery are so necessary and are also very expensive at the same time. Medicare simply helps fill that societal need.
In real terms of value and production there is no way to do a heart transplant cheap. A small used car with a few dents might be a few thousand dollars and perfectly serviceable. But a few thousand would never cover an intensely difficult, highly technical surgical procedure, followed by very complicated and chronic post op medical care.
Of course 3rd party payments tend to increase medical business and might tend to raise the price of many things in medicine. But not all, and not uniformly. As with Medicare there have been great controls on hospital and doctor payments. But not enough with drug costs.
Your view would work well for the rich. Yours is a common sense and free market view that just does not work well in most medical environments. Most prominently because of the aging effect on health needs.
Ken Arrow is your economist and summed it all up quite nicely:
It would work for everyone. If everyone wanted to pay the premiums. But they don't.
Take car insurance as an example. When you call Geico they don't base your premiums in income or ability to pay. Insurence is a financial contract that is based on actuarial risk and payouts over time. Everyone driving pays the same rate, which by all accounts is highly regressive. National Health could be more progressive and still pass the fairness test. I wouldn't oppose a flat payroll tax to fund NH which is hardly fair to wealthier taxpayers but it is morally justifiable to me as everyone is at least contributing and paying. Liberals want nothing to do with more taxes - especially at the level needed to fund UHC.
The mandate will not happen because they are already seeing that even with subsidies people can't afford it. The only way to make them "afford it" is take out of their paycheck before they ever see it. This would ripple through the economy. Things like iPhones and other gadgets and non essential goods and services would take the brunt. Low income people buy $3 coffee also. When their paycheck is docked before hand, something would give. The corporate masters and bankers know all this and keep you all pointing fingers.
The AMA would be forced to loosen up and train more doctors for less money and prices would fall.
I wanted to further understand where you were coming from.
I think its important to understand that it will be unlikely you can attribute my concept of government and public policy to a political or ideological perspective. While I'll admit that I'm closer to libertarian than any other ideology I think I subscribe to concepts that are contrary to a strict libertarian philosophy. I believe morals have a place in society at the individual level. If you were to subscribe me to an ideology, it would be pragmatism based on core tenets of the Constitution. Life, liberty and Justice, with none being absolute. I do not believe I should enforce morality upon other people. Morality is not a truth.
Quote:
I do not prefer to focus on the ‘All Tax is Theft’ axiom because my objective or goal in these are to consider plausible, pragmatic, firmly based in reality solutions.
Neither do I, in fact, I've mentioned a few times it does not really matter that taxes are theft which I'm sure you understand puts me in direct conflict with a libertarian philosophy.
Quote:
Public policies & legislation, that have tangible empirical benefits to societies/communities are very often based on moral reasoning.
I do not deny morals play a role in our law making. I do not think they should. I also do not deny there are good laws that were based on morality however I believe they are good in spite of the methodology used. In other words, you can use a flawed method for cooking stew and it could end up tasting good.
No, this is just another morally bankrupt argument. Since 100% of humans eventually die, your viewwpoint is "why bother changing the system?"
No. My argument is that rich people and poor people alike, regardless of access to medical care or not, get sick and die from terminal cancer. Having medical care does not change that outcome.
Tends not to work very well with government. IRS is supposed to collect legitimately owed debt to the United States, yet decided to harrass conservatives.
Sometimes we the people ask for it. In the '80's it was doctors and other high earners taking large retirement benefit deductions.
It would work for everyone. If everyone wanted to pay the premiums. But they don't.
Take car insurance as an example. When you call Geico they don't base your premiums in income or ability to pay. Insurence is a financial contract that is based on actuarial risk and payouts over time. Everyone driving pays the same rate, which by all accounts is highly regressive. National Health could be more progressive and still pass the fairness test. I wouldn't oppose a flat payroll tax to fund NH which is hardly fair to wealthier taxpayers but it is morally justifiable to me as everyone is at least contributing and paying. Liberals want nothing to do with more taxes - especially at the level needed to fund UHC.
The mandate will not happen because they are already seeing that even with subsidies people can't afford it. The only way to make them "afford it" is take out of their paycheck before they ever see it. This would ripple through the economy. Things like iPhones and other gadgets and non essential goods and services would take the brunt. Low income people buy $3 coffee also. When their paycheck is docked before hand, something would give. The corporate masters and bankers know all this and keep you all pointing fingers.
The AMA would be forced to loosen up and train more doctors for less money and prices would fall.
Car insurance is not a good comparison. It would be like all our seniors owning decrepit Lamboghini's.
Having more docs typically increases HC costs. A huge amount of medical stuff goes undone. Get more docs and each doc will carve out a niche, find the work and make the money he or she desires. And as the doc's cut is a relatively small part of HC costs, the dollars quickly add up and up. This is why hospitals continue to recruit docs. More docs means more patients, more encounters, more tests and hospital days.
We will need more primary docs and other caregivers moving forward. NP's and PA's may desire and get a lower salary than MD's, but the overall HC costs and spending will tend to rise moving forward, not go down.
No. My argument is that rich people and poor people alike, regardless of access to medical care or not, get sick and die from terminal cancer. Having medical care does not change that outcome.
In some cases I agree it doesn't matter, like pancreatic cancer. But in many other cases it does.
I and my wife both had terminal disease. I heart, she lymphoma. The poor and those without highly specialized HC access may not have done as well as we have.
Young kids have cheaper cars as they earn less. As they get a little older, they earn a little more and get a nicer car (higher premiums). When they retire they might finally get that cadillac and the RV, but they have the most wealth and disposable income.
Health insurance is the same. Young kids have the least risk and cost, but as long as they pay into the pool over their life the system can absorb the costs.
I will guess that 65% of all care could be handled at the local corner drugstore if they carved out a patient room. This includes routine visits and immunizations, coughs and colds and perhaps even routine care of certain chronic conditions. If there was an ample supply of doctors to staff them we would see a huge drop in the need for $200 million dollar hospitals with shiny new equipment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
