I'm probably the only person who will concur with you on this one ;).
This whole hoohah is about redistribution (money we pay for our health insurance goes to cover those who don't have it) and about giving government greater control over everyday lives, including when it's time to end it. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all instigate reform that inevitably leads to a single-payer system. Just because somebody doesn't have insurance or doesn't want to buy it shouldn't mean I should be deprived of private insurance down the road.
There's no talk at all about tort reform, deregulation, or a real free market solution that would allow more freedom to choose whatever plan works for you. More competition = better services, lower prices, more variety. The free market drives innovation. Government control stifles it.
No private company has the power over liberty, property, or life the way the government does. Once it has control over the health care system for most people, it will justify more intrusive laws into what you eat, drink, smoke, etc. since unhealthy behavior will cost taxpayers money.
I know all about the worst bureaucratic red tape you can encounter with HMOs or PPOs. But while you can always improve the way insurance companies operate, you can't with a vast government bureaucracy that will get bigger and more byzantine with time. If it ends up being the only game in town for most people, as in the case of a single-payer system, it will have absolutely no incentive to improve its services either. When costs go up and supply can't meet demand, there will be rationing. So you go from being hard-to-insure or uninsurable to being untreated because you're 80 and not long for the world anyway.
Re: Here via a link; sorry to butt in.lazypadawanAugust 25 2009, 15:24:56 UTC
One of the problems with the current system is with people with pre-existing conditions. That doesn't mean I agree that there are hordes of people dying all of the time due to the insurance industry, but I know that you end up frequently having to pay out of pocket or pay a lot more the next time if an insurance company takes you, just as a car wreck will up your car insurance.
However, I don't think that government-run health care is going to be the panacea to solve everyone's problems. I get its appeal is free or relatively inexpensive guaranteed care, but either the care won't be as good as most Americans have become accustomed to or it won't be as cheap as everyone hopes it will be. Maybe both.
Re: Here via a link; sorry to butt in.cidercupcakesAugust 25 2009, 16:13:40 UTC
What do you suggest we do to solve the problem of people with pre-existing conditions, then? I realize this probably sounds flippant, but this is my main sticking point on any health-care plan, for obvious reasons, and I'm curious what solution could be achieved under the system we've got
( ... )
Re: Here via a link; sorry to butt in.lazypadawanAugust 26 2009, 01:40:08 UTC
I think it should be easier to get group insurance so you can't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, i.e. through churches, clubs, charitable organizations, etc.. I've also read about states creating high-risk pools so that poor folks with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage. I don't see why private organizations can't do the same. If there are laws prohibiting it, then the laws should change. There are other ideas out there
( ... )
In all fairness, isn't free market competition in the insurance industry what we have now? And yet, even with our "good" insurance, the only way my mother and I will be able to pay our medical bills is if we win the Powerball.
Unfettered government involvement (which I don't think is going on here, but I digress) may not be a good thing, but unfettered capitalism is hardly perfect either.
Not exactly. Insurance companies are regulated by the state and that determines stuff like what they can offer, rates, etc.. I can only get insurance in California and so long as I'm employed, I have to get what my employer offers. If I find the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama offers better rates, I can't switch. If I like my dad's insurance better, tough luck. If it were up to me, you would be able to check on Yelp and other consumer oriented sites to see who offers the best bang for your buck and with the least amount of hassle.
This whole hoohah is about redistribution (money we pay for our health insurance goes to cover those who don't have it) and about giving government greater control over everyday lives, including when it's time to end it. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all instigate reform that inevitably leads to a single-payer system. Just because somebody doesn't have insurance or doesn't want to buy it shouldn't mean I should be deprived of private insurance down the road.
There's no talk at all about tort reform, deregulation, or a real free market solution that would allow more freedom to choose whatever plan works for you. More competition = better services, lower prices, more variety. The free market drives innovation. Government control stifles it.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I know all about the worst bureaucratic red tape you can encounter with HMOs or PPOs. But while you can always improve the way insurance companies operate, you can't with a vast government bureaucracy that will get bigger and more byzantine with time. If it ends up being the only game in town for most people, as in the case of a single-payer system, it will have absolutely no incentive to improve its services either. When costs go up and supply can't meet demand, there will be rationing. So you go from being hard-to-insure or uninsurable to being untreated because you're 80 and not long for the world anyway.
That's what I'm getting at.
Reply
Reply
However, I don't think that government-run health care is going to be the panacea to solve everyone's problems. I get its appeal is free or relatively inexpensive guaranteed care, but either the care won't be as good as most Americans have become accustomed to or it won't be as cheap as everyone hopes it will be. Maybe both.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Unfettered government involvement (which I don't think is going on here, but I digress) may not be a good thing, but unfettered capitalism is hardly perfect either.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment