Free markets key to affordable health care
The Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform has some nerve. Its favorite plans involve funding government programs by taxing you when purchasing snacks, alcohol and cigarettes (“Healthy living may pay off/Sin taxes could fund statewide medical coverage,” Aug. 1). Yet, as shown by FAIR, my proposal at the commission’s Web site, such meddling in our private choices has crippled health-care markets.
First, because the tax code deeply discounts employer-paid insurance, you’re essentially stuck with your employer’s comprehensive plans. These discourage doctors from competing on price and service. As a captive customer, insurers can afford to mistreat you. Changing insurers requires your finding another job or paying taxes on dollars spent on an individual plan.
Second, mandated insurance benefits significantly increase premium costs, hence making it a crime to purchase affordable insurance. Further, ineffective Medicare and Medicaid programs drive up insurance costs.
Instead of further eroding our freedom, the commission should repeal legislation that prevents free markets from delivering affordable, quality health care.
Brian T. Schwartz, Boulder
Brian - how much market demand is there for cancer?
Posted by Liam on August 13, 2007 05:22 AMAs long as health care insurers control access to health care, there will be a problem. The whole point of insurance is that the insurer collects money for possible future problems (car accidents, home burglaries, health issues, etc) and then does its best to pay out at a minimum rate. I suggest this country take a look at the Japanese coverage (which seems to be the most effective of the single payer national plans) , which is a single payer plan combining employer contribution, government contribution & co-pays by the patients. It costs less than half the GDP than the current US system (in point of fact, all the countries using single payer plans have a lower health care cost than the US & most of the 24 countries have better outcomes for the patients), mandates that EVERYONE is covered, regardless of age or pre-existing conditions - and results in the highest life expectancy in the world and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Perhaps there is a longer wait for non-vital services (LASIK, breast augmentation, cosmetic lipsuction, etc) - but overall the healthcare is better. I suspect the folks most adamantly opposed to a single payer plan are either heavily invested in health care insurance or pharmaceutical companies - or they (and all their loved ones) are currently healthy - and they don't understand that the outrageous cost of health care ultimately costs us all.
Posted by Mary on August 13, 2007 06:02 AMWell put Mary. Too bad Liam throws out a stupid remark without thinking and contributing to the discussion. I have said for a long time it is the insurance companies that need revamping and the government should get out of it and let the market straighten it out.
Posted by on August 13, 2007 06:09 AMI have been following these debates on the Rocky blog pages for a while. I have yet to see any proposals as to how to risk share for those who incur chronic health problems through no fault of their own. Try Type 1 juvenile diabetes. Insulin pumps ($4-6k), continuous glucose monitor (2K), insulin, blood testing devices, blood testing strips, glucogon (in case of severe lows and seizures), emergency room trips (we have had 3 in 3 years of Type 1 diabetes management), quarterly meetings with the doc outside regular care of the pediatrition. As a widowed mother of 3 (husband lost to cancer), how in the world will I be able to pay for all of this on the free market? I believe the solution is in the middle of the extremes. What about the children who have cancer? How will a parent pay for that treatment. No one, even Milton Friedman "invisible hand thinkers can tell me how to resolve the above situations with reasonable costs. As it is, my health care expenditures per month are 800. How is my family supposed to survive? (I am not on ANY government assistance...I work my butt of just trying to keep our heads above water but one more move either way on costs, and we may file bankruptcy.
Please, someone offer a medical plan solution. Have not heard it. Only heard philisophical diatribe that means nothing...give me some hard core, well thought out solutions and the statistics to prove your plans. Even think tanks can't give it to me.
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 07:41 AMPlease tell me how much all of the above Type 1 diabetes care would cost on the "free market". Diabetes is one of the most profitable to the pharmaceuticals. My 12 year old did not ask for her Type 1 diabetes (never to be confused with Type 2). So, please tell me what my costs would be on the free market. With Pharmaceuticals still in the picture, I don't see a thing changing.
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 07:45 AMBoy you got that right. Market forces, competition, individual accountability and responsibility, choices and the ability to shop the system in one's own best interest mean higher quality and lower prices. Monopolies never work for the consumer, its always the other way around.
The alternative is that we depend on the crowd who run the post office, repair our bridges and determine our national energy priorities for our healthcare. That's one part of Tobacco Road that I don't want any part.
Posted by Hank on August 13, 2007 07:52 AMHank said:
"The alternative is that we depend on the crowd who run the post office, repair our bridges and determine our national energy priorities for our healthcare."
Errr, Hank, that would be your fellow Americans...and could you parse that last sentence? It makes no sense, just like letting the "free market" make billions off peoples misery.
Posted by Charles B on August 13, 2007 08:03 AM"Please, someone offer a medical plan solution. Have not heard it. Only heard philisophical diatribe that means nothing..."
That might mean nothing to someone who wants one plan for everyone that is also run by one payer and one decision maker. The one size fits all solution. But there are over 300 million different sized folks in the USA, each accountable and responsibele for themselves, and all capable of making their own choices and decisions. Therefore, the plans that provide the best service at the lowest cost also number about 300 million, with some plans having only very minor differences from the other plans--choices.
Similiarly here is no single plan that Americans where to shop, what to buy, when to buy it, and how much they have to pay...there are 300 million differentr plans at play every day, with everyone making their own choices in their own best interest.
If you are incabable of being responsible for yourself and not accountable for your own choices, then you probably need someone else's solutions for you. You can probably find such a plan in Havana.
Posted by Hank on August 13, 2007 08:14 AMNothing Hank says ever makes any sense.
Posted by Beavis on August 13, 2007 08:15 AM"Errr, Hank, that would be your fellow Americans...and could you parse that last sentence? It makes no sense, just like letting the "free market" make billions off peoples misery."
And what did my fellow, errr, Americans do for themselves to take care of themselves, to be accountable and responsible for themselves, too feed themselves, to clothe themselves, to educate themselves? As it says in the book, "I'm not my brothers keeper." And I'm not going to start now.
And making billions is what free-market American capitalism is all about. Without it, there would be no pills, no drugs, no operations, no cars, no homes, no TVs and yes, no pants, underware, Corn Flakes and tooth brushes. I suggest you get out of your welfare hammock and join the rest of you responsible fellow Americans at some gainful place of employment that will share some of those billions with its employees. I suggest that you get a job and end your misery. As for me, I prefer to own the stocks of those same companies and collect the dividends paid out of those billions. Try it, it works. Its very American and it really takes the sting out of all that misery.
Posted by Hank on August 13, 2007 08:28 AMHow is my daughter responsible for her own Type 1 (not Type 2) diabetes. How is a person responsible for parkinson's, alzheimer's, etc. Too bad, so sad...just be quiet and die if you cannot afford treatment. There has got to be a middle ground. Let's shut down public schools and have a free market school system with no government control. Free market does not seem to be working with energy (greed and profit are an extreme also). Pollute at all costs (part of free market). There is middle ground here...we just have to find it.
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 08:58 AMNo one, including free marketers like Hank, have answered my question regarding statistics, instead of theory, regarding what it will cost those with chronic conditions THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, and what to do with their treatments. Please don't tell me their costs will be lower because of free market. I don't have dental insurance and my dentist did not give me a break for having my children's teeth cleaned. I paid cash...no discounts.
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 09:01 AMA common thread seems to be the phrase "through no fault of there own” Seems like the Smokers, most of the AIDS patients and most of the overweight are SOL. Can we peacefully put them to sleep or are extermination camps the solution. We all make mistakes. How about a health system for the people, by the people and of the people? Let’s leave the judgment to God and perhaps the Fundamentalists / Republicans....
Posted by Robert on August 13, 2007 09:23 AMRobert....I have no qualms in assisting ALL people but the juxt of exclusive free marketers is that everyone should "reap what they sow" and take "responsibility" for themselves but they miss the point that there remain some who have medical situations through no fault of their own. These extreme Adam Smith "no government", let happen whatever happens, cannot respond with statistics that will show it is those persons' benefit to allow the free market to help them. The free market divides along class lines...either you are rich and can afford health care or you suffer and die. Too bad, so sad. WWJD?
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 09:39 AMCheryl:
I can understand your frustration and sympathize with the circumstances you cite. I think the problem is misunderstood by the either / or arguments presented here. It is just to damned easy for those who cannot think for themselves to parrot the contentions of equallity unthinking, politically motivated pundits.
Either/or choices ignore the many differences that exist in the medical requirements of people. The only system that will work is one that recognizes this and sets actions in motion to require that these differences are addressed, initially, by care givers on a sliding scale payment plan based on ability to pay then followed up by co-payments from the reciever of the care. The same from pharmaceutical companies and the rest from a federal health care agency limited to what remains. The pharmaceutical companies will make up this initial loss in good will and company loyalty. The initial care giver will benefit from the federal health care agency which, if unburdened by the present system of Medicare and medicade, which is corrupted by the unethical and criminal actions of the medical community, will therefor be able to responsibly manage the taxpayers money ergo, the costs involved.
Of course this will require a wholesale restructuring of the system now in place, but it's a start.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 13, 2007 10:05 AMthanks for the insight, Allen. It's that type of discussion that will get us somewhere. Finding a middle ground is where a solution lies...it won't be easy but it is going to have to be done. We as a nation cannot continue "as is".
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 10:20 AMHank, answer me two questions regarding free-market and “individual responsibility”, if you would.
1. How would the free-market deal with a project like the eradication of smallpox?
2. How “individual responsibility” explain the fact that living with obese people increases your risk of obesity, living in a society that doesn’t treat TB in it’s poor increases the likelihood of your risk of contracting it, and increasing the profit margin in power-plants increases your risks of neurological and respiratory illnesses.
If you find those answerable, then please explain addiction in terms of “individual responsibility”.
When you have answered those, I have an absolute doozy about how certain parasites or infections alter a host’s behaviour and make transmission more likely.
The republican idea of "free markets" is to have the for-profit HMO industry run the health care system (together with their partners in crime, the pharmaceutical industry). So now we have "health care" companies whose primary incentive is to deny people coverage - and protect a bottom-line that pays an HMO CEO $22 million a year. While 50 million people have no health insurance. What's wrong with this picture?
The foxes are running the hen house & the wealthy foxes aren't going to relinquish control anytime soon. This sleazy status quo needs a drastic overhaul.
Posted by drew on August 13, 2007 11:51 AMNow that Hank is busily thinking about those questions, here is a puzzler about “individual responsibility”
What I want from those pundits and believers in “individual responsibility, is an explanation of how to understand the behaviour of people whose decision-making powers are affected by (a) infections, (b) addictions, and (c) social forces
Let’s start with infection by toxoplasma gondii for example, a fairly common infection in cats and rats. When t.gondii infects a human female, it acts on the hosts nervous system and causes her to become “… more outgoing, friendly, more promiscuous, and … considered more attractive to men compared with non-infected controls”.
How do we judge the higher risk-taking behaviour of a male infected with t.gondii and the increased sexually risky behaviour of a female?
Are we to judge their behaviour as simply a matter of “individual responsibility” even though an infection is driving the increase in risky behaviour?
… to be continued
Cheryl,
I am very sorry for the loss your family has experienced, but according to the American Diabetes Association, 3 million people suffer from Type 1 diabetes. Would you promote changing an entire health care system for .01% of the population?
And honestly, and this is never discussed, what about the tens of millions that do indeed have VERY good health insurance? Should I be expected to give up all of my liberties? My very good insurance, to as I believe Dan2 and KW once wrote, to assist in 16% of the population? How is that fair or equitable? And how are we (in a Federal system), actually going to pay for this? Who will have the over sight? How do we insure that corruption doesn't move into the FDA, when they are the one's now "marketing" health care?
Drew,
There are 43 million uninsured. Not 50 million, 43 million. According to the US Census:
Health Insurance Coverage
Overview
The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained unchanged, at 15.7 percent in 2004.
The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004.
The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2004, from 26.6 percent to 27.2 percent, driven by increases in the percentage of people with Medicaid coverage, from 12.4 percent in 2003 to 12.9 percent in 2004.
The proportion and number of uninsured children did not change in 2004, remaining at 11.2 percent or 8.3 million.
I personally would love to see something better, but if it is not better than my current coverage, then I am going to be selfish. No way can this be paid for with payroll taxes, or "sin" taxes, but with a national sales tax on goods and services. That way EVERYONE pays an equitable amount. Those that make more, purchase more and more expensive things, and those that are poor, still need goods and will pay for their "fair" share as well.
But there sure are a lot of details that need to be discussed, budgeted, and logistically planned. Hell, we can't secure the borders, how are we going to secure health care?
Posted by on August 13, 2007 01:06 PMI am not asking to revamp the health system for only Type 1 diabetics. I am just stating that in a workable solution, people likeType 1's, those who have diseases, not just Type 1, of whom they suffer from the disease through "no fault of their own" cannot be ignored. Everyone pays a premium for auto insurance that covers those that get DUI's, etc. Same for homeowner's. Sure, rates for an individual increase becase a claim is filed and of increased risk BUT don't tell me that my homeowner's did not go up because of Katrina. It did despite not filing a claim. It's called risk pooling or sharing. So, each of our lives affect the other whether we like it or not.
Posted by cheryl on August 13, 2007 01:23 PMOK, anonymous... so there are 43 million uncovered, not 50million. So sue me.
But, of course, as you say (and at least you're honest) - you've got yours, so who cares about 43 million uninsured? Are you friends with KW? You seem to have the same morals & values.
Guess that's "compassionate conservatism" for you.
Posted by drew on August 13, 2007 02:21 PM"Guess that's 'compassionate conservatism' for you."
Drew,
So, you are in favor of requiring people to be compassionate? Requiring people to be generous with their own money?
Posted by Mike on August 13, 2007 02:24 PM1:06-
I think you mean 1% of the population has type 1 diabetes. 3/300 = 1%.
Posted by Tbone on August 13, 2007 02:57 PMDrew:
"OK, anonymous... so there are 43 million uncovered, not 50million. So sue me."
Come on drew, don't start being like michael moore. Stand steadfast, whether your accurate or not.
The real numbers I posted on the other thread. In summary...
46 mil uninsured (per Census)
17 mil who choose not to be coverd (per Census)
10 mil non citizens (per Census)
This leave appx 20 mil "without" insurance.
Of course we must factor the 45% that will become insured within 4 mo due to job transitioning but even if we don't, we're down to only 6.7% uninsured in this country.
Why overhaul the engine at mandated taxpayer expense if it only needs a tune up?
Posted by KW on August 13, 2007 04:45 PMMike,
"So, you are in favor of requiring people to be compassionate? Requiring people to be generous with their own money?"
No - did I say that? But I'd like the government to be good stewards of the tax dollars they reap from individuals & corporations. For starters I'd like to see my hard earned tax dollars put to good use - one way would be to overhaul this corrupt health care system & make sure people in this country don't die because they can't afford health care.
I think that would be a good use of federal money - rather than, say, spending trillions on mess of a war in Iraq that has increased terrorist recruiting, killed thousands of Americans & made our world more dangerous.
That would be "compassionate" - however, it won't put money in the pockets of Dick Cheney & his cabal of war profiteers, so I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by drew on August 13, 2007 04:49 PMK-dub, care to cite where those figures come from?
I didn't see a figure for "choose not to" in the census reports, maybe I didn't see the right report.
KW,
As usual I'll take your figures with a grain of salt. Even if I had to assume that you are correct, your conclusion is that 20 million people being uninsured is just fine - why? Because KW has insurance.
I find that disturbing - especially from someone who purports to be a Christian. Why is it that all other western countries can take care of all their citizens' health care needs, but we, the "leader" of the west, can't?
"Why overhaul the engine at mandated taxpayer expense if it only needs a tune up?" KW, if our health care system was a car, its engine wouldn't need a tune up - it would be a burned-out wreck that had been plundered by gangsters from the pharma & HMO industries.
Posted by drew on August 13, 2007 05:17 PMDrew,
A good use of "federal money" as you put it is military spending. That is a duty of the federal government. You might not like how a certain administration carries it out ( I didn't like many of the things Clinton did with the military, but I never complained about my tax dollars being spent on it), but it is a function of the federal government.
Taking money from me to provide health care for someone else is not.
"No - did I say that?"
No, but you did say this:
"For starters I'd like to see my hard earned tax dollars put to good use - one way would be to overhaul this corrupt health care system & make sure people in this country don't die because they can't afford health care."
"...That would be 'compassionate'..."
You want to force people to be "compassionate". You want tax dollars spent on the health care for those who cannot (or choose not to) pay for it themselves. I don't want to be a part of such a program; therefore, you are forcing me to be compassionate, as you would see it.
Mike, you do realize that many illnesses are transmissible, right?
Yep, that "free market" is the answer to everything, isn't it? Never mind that services keep diminishing or disappearing (I know I'm giving away my age, but when I was a child you didn't have to pump your own gas), customers treated like servants or children while being made to wait in ever-lengthening lines (either in person or on the phone), and prices keep skyrocketing.
I can't wait for "free market" health care and "do-it-yourself" surgery counters! Or slowly expiring while waiting for "the next available operator."
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 13, 2007 05:48 PMThere are two mind sets that stand in the way of a good discussion on health care.
(1) Luck: some people think that those really expensive, life threatening illnesses are the fault of the person infected, or afflicted. These healthy people are the bread and butter of the Republican party, until they get the news that a child of theirs has a genetic problem.
(2) Fear: Even though there are better systems all over the world, and yes , better is a subjective term. Even though people from here are going to Indonesia for heart surgery, Americans get medicine through Canada and folks go to Mexico for dental care, the Republics can count on fear of "socialized medicine" keeping the people stuck with iffy insurance coverage. They can refuse anything they like, or put your case "into review" while you die.
All over the world people deal with doctors and pharmacists without the middle man of the insurance company.
Lucky, smug, fearful people change their minds and join us in wanting to overhaul the health care in this country, one sick child at a time.
No matter how you hedge all your bets in life, it is only a matter of time before your luck runs out and all your great planning blows up in your face.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 13, 2007 06:31 PMCheryl said:
"How is my daughter responsible for her own Type 1 (not Type 2) diabetes." Cheryl, your child is not responsible for her own care, until she is an adult. But you as her parent are morally responsible for her support -- including her health care. Her care is not the responsibility of others.
But you seem to also imply another sense of the word "responsible". A person with a congenital disease is obviously not "responsible" for the cause of his disease. But then, neither is anyone else responsible for causing it. If one has a problem he did not cause, this does not mean that others are responsible for his problem. For instance, I will die if I dont eat. I did not cause that need -- it's a characteristic I was born with. Yet this fact does not make my food your responsibility. It gives me no right to enslave you by forcing you to feed me. If I wish to live I must feed myself, that is my own responsibility.
Drew suggests " [making] sure people in this country don't die because they can't afford health care." Drew has a right to make sure of this -- but only with his own money. Those who cannot afford health care should rely on voluntary charity. But no one has a right to force others to provide him or her (or a third party) with health care.
Posted by Richard Watts on August 13, 2007 10:56 PMHans Christian Brando said:
"Yep, that "free market" is the answer to everything, isn't it? Never mind that services keep diminishing or disappearing (I know I'm giving away my age, but when I was a child you didn't have to pump your own gas), customers treated like servants or children while being made to wait in ever-lengthening lines (either in person or on the phone), and prices keep skyrocketing."
The problems you speak of in today's economy were not caused by a free market. We certainly do not live in a free market today, nor has there been anything close to a free market in America in our lifetimes. As government interference has increased through the decades, so have the economic problems.
Richard Watts, most of the industrialized world had the kind of system you refer to in the 1800`s.
We also had orphanages filled with kids and children working in factories to eat. Young parents died daily of the disease called poverty.
If we evesr get a time machine, I would personally like to send you to, oh say1820 for a month or two.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 14, 2007 01:28 AM"Mike, you do realize that many illnesses are transmissible, right?"- Bango
Yes, and I would require vaccinations against such diseases. I would even do that at taxpayer expense.
Why should I be responsible for paying for someone else's knee surgery, or dental exams?
"If we evesr (sic) get a time machine, I would personally like to send you to, oh say1820 for a month or two."- Sharon
Okay, Sharon, send us selfish people back to 1820. How does that make me obligated to pay someone else's bills? Why would someone else be entitled to my money, or yours?
Mike said ” Yes, and I would require vaccinations against such diseases. I would even do that at taxpayer expense.”
Splendid, we are off to a good start!
Innoculations will sort out a small proportion of transmissible diseases, many others will need infrastructural support like clean water, waste disposal, ability to heat water, elimination of pests, etc.
Still more will need social upliftment programs to educate people and enable good hygiene and sanitary living conditions.
Plus we need monitoring programs to keep malaria and yellow-fever away - which used to be rife in many southern areas and will return if we don’t watch carefully.
Then of course there are the potential epidemic diseases that we want to monitor far away and keep off these shores entirely, like H5N1 and SARS.
”Why should I be responsible for paying for someone else's knee surgery, or dental exams?”
Since you are a Conservative, I will frame this in terms of “what’s in it for you”.
If you help others, it increases the odds that they will help you, and since the future is veiled, you can never know if an accident or miscalculation might bring you low and force you to rely on the kindness of strangers. By funding a commonwealth of healthcare, you ensure that it is there when you and your kin might need it.
Now for the money side; since Conservatives respect sound financial investment.
Many diseases (a) lower productivity, and (b) are cheaper to treat earlier than later.
So from your question about dental care: there are many pathogens that contribute to or are concomitant with dental decay and which lead to serious cardio-vascular problems if left untreated.
So spending a small amount on dental care for a workforce increases productivity and thus profitability, and also reduces the later cost of emergency care by several orders of magnitude.
A healthy workforce is a cheap workforce and a productive workforce, invest in healthcare to boost productivity and maximize profit!
Aren’t you glad you asked?
A free market (and greed) caused the Great Depression. Seems to me Keynesian economics and the government with its WPA and other jobs created got the economy started again. There is no such thing as a free market without government - including business regulations
Posted by cheryl on August 14, 2007 12:20 PM"If you help others, it increases the odds that they will help you..."
Ah yes, there's McBango again peddling under the guise of kind, soft, caring and a deep desire to truly help out the less fortunate.
As long as she can force you to pay for it.
Maybe you need a new dictionary McB, MW doesn't use the word taxation in it's definition of 'charity.'
Posted by KW on August 14, 2007 12:32 PM"If you help others, it increases the odds that they will help you, and since the future is veiled, you can never know if an accident or miscalculation might bring you low and force you to rely on the kindness of strangers."
I do help others; I just would never dream of REQUIRING individuals to help others.
"So spending a small amount on dental care for a workforce increases productivity and thus profitability, and also reduces the later cost of emergency care by several orders of magnitude."
And so would providing them with nutritional food; education to help them live a more healthy lifestyle, stay off drugs, and be more sexually responsible.
So what? Why is that the responsibility of anyone other than the individual?
Inoculations, social uplift programs?!?!, monitoring programs, dental care for a workforce, funding a commonwealth of healthcare, ...
Is there anything that should be the responsibility of the individual?
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 12:32 PMGeez, no diabetes runs in my family and it seems as though research is confirming that chemicals in our environment are triggering Type1 in CHILDREN who have a different immune system. Whom shall I sue to be responsible for these chemicals since we do not consume junk food.
Posted by cheryl on August 14, 2007 01:05 PMCheryl,
Was anyone violating the law; putting chemicals out there that they knew would trigger Type 1 diabetes?
Or was it not known, since you said research is now confirming?
In that case; sue no one.
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 01:17 PMsociety, free markets, pollution and society. I am just saying that society as a whole causes trouble for individuals at times. Why can't we look out for each other? I hope those who claim free markets and self responsibility never fall to a disease or need assistance. WWJD?
Posted by cheryl on August 14, 2007 01:26 PM"Why can't we look out for each other?"
We can and we should. We just don't need the government mandating participation and taxing us to accomplish this.
Posted by KW on August 14, 2007 02:02 PM"WWJD?"
Who cares?
Mike, I am just not getting the feeling that you are onboard with these programs, and since without them we would be up to our necks in disease and pestilence again, I am curious as to why you don’t value them.
I mean, when last did you hear of malaria or yellow fever being endemic in the USA?
Don’t you think we need them, or are you just not too demonstrative about them.
Bango,
There is a HUGE difference between requiring vaccinations, ensuring the public water supply is clean, checking immigrants and visitors for communicable diseases,etc... and requiring me to subsidize Mr. and Mrs. Skank's dental cleanings.
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 04:18 PMMike, ok so far so good.
I will take it that you are in favour of those programs you mentioned but not of dental cleaning.
While I understand your preference to put the dental work at the door of “personal responsibility”, I assume that you would not refuse that same patient care when they pitch up at the ER a few years later with heart problems?
I also assumed you want a strong workforce.
So what I can’t figure is why it is so important to you that these people either pay their own dental or go without, when the direct result will be higher costs to the taxpayer and a diminished workforce for the employer.
It seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
- or maybe I just don’t understand your position.
"- or maybe I just don’t understand your position."
Obviously, and I don't think you are capable of understanding my position. You believe that some men are entitled to the fruits of other men's labors. (you might spell that labour)
"So what I can’t figure is why it is so important to you that these people either pay their own dental or go without"
False dilemma.
First of all, what is important to me is that I am not EXPECTED to pay for it. I am a charitable person; I just can't stand the EXPECTATION of charity; the REQUIREMENT of compassion. It would be nice if more people were compassionate; I would never make it a law, however.
They don't, necessarily, have to go without. There are dentists who donate their time to perform work on those who have a difficult time paying for it.
I also question SOME of those who say they can't afford health/dental insurance and treatment. Are these the same people who have multiple cars and blow a lot of money on alcohol and cigarettes? I am sure many more people could afford the necessities in life if they abstained from spending money on the frivolities.
"I assume that you would not refuse that same patient care when they pitch up at the ER a few years later with heart problems?"
No, I wouldn't. I would expect that person to pay for his treatment, though; or, a portion of it over time, if necessary.
Sorry, Bango, that was me above. You probably assumed that.
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 05:10 PMMike reminds me of "old Man Potter" in Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life". If that's his thing, so be it. I prefer to be and prefer to be around those who are more the "George Bailey" types. Unless one is a mountain man living outside society, each impacts another, one way or another. If we don't help each other out from time to time, we will be a miserable society full of anger. Very sad.
Posted by cheryl on August 14, 2007 05:35 PMCheryl,
Personally, I am very generous with my time and money. I am involved in a lot of charitable activities. It is something I believe in very strongly.
I just don't believe in mandating charity and compassion.
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 05:56 PMMike:
I have never suggested that charity be mandated. But these extreme of options regarding allocation of health care- free market vs single payer (or what some label socialistic medicine) - will never work. A middle ground that is fair to all, even those who are "irresponsible" or who incur a disease through no fault of their own. It is ludicrous that in this wealthy country a hard working person who does his or her best to sustain his or her family can lose their home and be required to file bankruptcy because of lack of medical coverage or inadequate medical coverage or a "denial" of coverage by their insurer. There is a solution and it falls in between the extremes. To state that "everyone is one their own" is Darwinistic and is against basic societal living mores. Right now, we all do pay for others through Medicaid and Medicare and CHP. We also pay higher medical costs when someone does not pay his or her medical bill. We just have to find a middle ground. I am really tired of fighting denials of health insurance coverage for my daughter despite paying 500 per month for coverage. The reasons for such denials change depending on the clerk that I speak to . I have put my insurance company on notice that is such a thing as "bad faith" failure to indemnify. They reverse themselves after I tell them that I have all the time in the world to make sure they are responsible for paying under the policy I purchased. Half my inlaws are physicians and they are tired of insurance companies, also, with all the forms and codies and separate negotiations, etc.
Posted by cheryl on August 14, 2007 07:16 PMCheryl,
You are stating that if one person cannot pay for his health care, then other taxpayers should pick up the tab. What is that, if not mandated charity?
"A middle ground that is fair to all, even those who are 'irresponsible' or who incur a disease through no fault of their own."
Fair to all? How is that possible?
The person making $15,000.00 per year is going to be getting back much more than he put in. The opposite is true for the person who makes $1,000,000.00 per year.
It will be another income transfer program, or, mandated charity.
"To state that 'everyone is one their own' is Darwinistic and is against basic societal living mores."
I guess I have more faith in our fellow citizens than you. Everyone wouldn't be "on their own". If there wasn't the sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in our society, then people would be much more generous and charitable. Right now, there is the expectation that "government" (a nice euphemism for your and my money) will take care of us. Government has taken over the roles that, in the past, were filled by churches and charities.
This inevitably leads to government dictating how we live our lives, since government is picking up the tab and could be responsible to pay for our bad behavior:
Smoking bans on private property
New York City banning trans fats
Seat belt laws
Helmet laws
A drinking age of 21 when you enjoy the other rights and responsibilities of adulthood at age 18
The last thing we need is more government involvement.
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 08:33 PMSo there you are, riding on a bus driven by a man who has a bad heart because, oh Hell, you know where this is going.
Cheryl, love the cave man hermit analogy. I have often used that to explain that human society is interdependent but until the hammer falls on some of these people it is all "no forced charity".
Posted by Sharon B. on August 14, 2007 10:06 PMSharon,
I hold true to my principles; even when I would benefit from deviating from them.
e.g. The smoking ban issue that has been talked about so many times on these threads.
Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you just making your usual weak attempt at humor?
Posted by Mike on August 14, 2007 11:31 PMSo Mike, what are you proposing in the following situation...10 year old has seizure, parents work low income jobs, do not have health insurance (let's assume CHP is not around). Emergency, hospitalization and follow up care costs....how much?????
These folks file bankruptcy due to medical bills. Docs and hospitals DO NOT GET PAID from these specific individuals. Who do you think the cost will be shifted to? THE REST OF US! You are already giving charity when someone cannot pay their bills. You pay higher retail prices when someone shoplifts, fails to pay credit cards, files bankruptcy, etc. Whether you like it or not, free markets incorporate charity in the form of higher prices for the rest of us who play the game by the rules. Like I said, there has to be a better way so that the above situation has a better chance of NOT happening.
Posted by cheryl on August 15, 2007 06:49 AMI am more curious about how Mike draws the line between things that people should be forced to pay for, like inoculations, and things they shouldn’t be, like dental work.
I am also curious about how he deals with reduced agency/responsibility in addiction, infection, and acquired neurological injury.
My favourite example was toxoplasmosis infection.
In men it leads to behaviour changes that increases risk taking and violence, in women it increases sexual promiscuity.
So do we judge that the increase is their own damned fault and thus refuse to help them, or do we just call it their bad luck and refuse to help, or …?
Mike, my "usual weak attempt at humor"? What, do you keep a scrapbook of my stuff?
The best of Sharon B. will be out shortly and for only $14.95......
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 11:16 PMSharon B.. Mike is John II...and he's just jealous because you're funny and he's not.
Posted by mytwosense on August 16, 2007 10:29 AM