Right to Privacy

[keegs]

In light of increased domestic terrorism, what privacy rights should be afforded to these groups?

 

[20 20]

In case any have not noticed, the Constitution is in danger of being tossed out, which is the new Progressive democrats' plan. Subtle, but very definite plan.
Along with it, goes any protection of the "rights" we think we should have. Time for everyone to wake up, IMO.

Was it not Bush that started all this invasion of privacy?

 

[20 20]

In the context of health care, what means of production will the government take ownership of? Not the hospitals, doctors or insurance companies.

Some countries do have 'socialized' medicine. We can see how that turned out, they get less expensive health care with quality metrics higher than our own. Forget about the scare stories, for every one, there is an equivalent health care horror happening here - without a socialized health care system.

The health care bill ended up attempting to do one major thing - force an insurance pool to function as it must. We use insurance pools for auto, homes, life. It's simple, the vast majority of people prefer to pay a regular small amount to protect themselves from having to someday, maybe, pay a very large amount. The lucky ones subsidize the unlucky, the insurance company takes the 'house' cut on your bet. It's a fact of life, not socialism.

In the current health insurance pool, young and healthy people see no benefit to paying, low income people of any age cannot afford to pay, most retirees can not afford to pay. Those too sick to work cannot pay obviously. What's left are those who are paying for everyone - people wealthy enough to be self insured and people whose employers or businesses pay some portion of their health insurance in lieu of wages.

There are a couple things we know. The poor and infirm will never be able to pay. Young, healthy people will need care eventually. Wealthy people are paying too much, but since their wealth is made possible by the society around them, they have an economic incentive to help that society. The employers and working families who buy insurance can no longer afford the costs.

Costs are the other thing we know, as in ours are high and going higher. Those costs have to brought to a reasonable level somehow. As I said before, I hope politicians find the guts to do it, they won't unless we put some backbone into them. There are reasons why our health care is so expensive, it isn't magic.

You speak of majorities. Can you find a majority of people who are willing to buy health care without using an insurance pool?
Dave.

:thumbsup:

 

[20 20]

and having the government run it will be better? How naive. There are plenty of people who are very happy with their health insurance, they just are not as vocal as the whiners and complainers.

until they need to use it and find out what it doesn't cover.

Government run or corporate run what is the difference? I thought I had great insurance, allways payed my bill on time etc.... Ooops someone should have told me I wasn't suppose to use it, wow did all the BS start rolling out when needed. I can tell countless story's of insurance BS, as I'm sure others can also. IMO insurance is one of the biggest corporate powers out there and they make the rules. If your going to become unhealthy ya better play by their rules or you can forget coverage! Of course I'm just one of those dang whiners, that thought when you buy something you should atleast get something in return.

 

[dave1949]

and having the government run it will be better? How naive. There are plenty of people who are very happy with their health insurance, they just are not as vocal as the whiners and complainers. Comparing us to other countries is a vapid, worthless comparison, as if spending less is a virtue. Our 'costs' are the result of millions of people making individual choices, not a bureaucrat choosing a budget item. Sadly, this current change is permanent and will only get worse, however, when this happens all the people who were in favor of it will go silent.

The government is not running healthcare. It is attempting to force the health care market to function as it must. That is no different than the SEC enforcing banking and trading rules. Rant if you must, but how many people would invest in securities if the SEC was not at least minimally effective?

What a fiction - 'plenty of people are very happy'. Would that include all the consumers who are seeing rate increases at multiples of 5 or 10 times the rate of inflation? Would that include small businesses who are priced out of the market? You want to call them whiners and complainers? Nice.

Nobody said spending less for the sake of spending less is a virtue, although it is an important aspect of capitalism - in case you missed that. What people want is VALUE. They are getting less and less value for their health care dollars. It is perfectly valid to compare our costs and results to other countries. That would be the basis for competition, comparing value. We do it everyday and it is another time-homored capitalist method. In case you didn't notice, we are in competition with other countries.

Whatever our 'costs' are, they are out of control. If individuals are truly making individual choices, then why are costs not responding. Hmmm, could it be you can't order your appendix removal online from across the country? You are attempting to apply supply and demand principles to a situation where the market is constrained by geography and practicality. There is hardly any functioning market for health services. Do you get online quotes from 10 doctors before scheduling your annual physical? Would you want to?
Dave.

 

[keegs]

Urologist Posts His Politics on His Florida Office Door - NYTimes.com

 

[2manyrocks]

My recollection is that if supply stays the same, and the demand curve goes up, prices increase. Intuitively, compelling millions more to buy health insurance won't lower costs. Moreover, I'm sure the insurance companies will find ways to exploit their newly created demand.

 

[dave1949]

Last first:
If I understand your question you are asking me if I can find a majority of people(Americans?) who are willing to buy health care without using a insurance pool?
My reply would be, why would they?

Exactly. They will overwhelmingly choose to buy insurance. It a simple question. The solutions flow from that fact. Recognizing that can cut through a lot of the socialism hot air, death panels, etc. and help us get to the heart of the issue.


Insurance(real insurance, not a social welfare program, disguised as insurance) is a necessary and prudent thing to use in planning one's life.
REAL insurance has premiums based on actual risk, not some made up number to satisfy some voters.

I agree. I haven't seen rates that would satisfy voters, but I agree with the concept. State Insurance Commissions generally regulate insurance rates. Such as here in Maine when Wellpoint/Anthem proposed a 28% hike for non-group customers just recently. They ask for 28%, probably get the commission to agree to 15%. Still five times above inflation rates. How 'real' can that be? They were profitable last year.


Again, I agree that health costs are too high
AGAIN, WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISTORTED THE MARKET!
As to the WSJ, if you can find me a paper that reports hard news any better, let me know, I will suscribe.


Mother Jones? The Utne Reader? The Progressive Populist? Now, you know there are many ways to report hard news. The WSJ editorials and commentaries are heavily weighted toward their subscriber audience just like any other publication.


Horror stories: How about this? 20% of NHS facilities in the UK failed to pass BASIC hygiene tests(As reported in The Guardian, As Left as it gets) but facts are facts and hard to ignore. Please inform me which state in the US has a one out of five failure rate in their hospitals.

Check on MRSA infection rates within US hospitals. There are programs put in place to remind doctors and nurses to wash their hands frequently and thoroughly. It's not unheard of for the wrong leg/arm/kidney to be operated on. Hospitals have instituted a rigid checklist system to reduce the occurrence. They would not have such a system if the problem didn't exist.
Dangerous MRSA Hospital Infection Puts Patients At Risk | HULIQ
Surgery Checklist Lowers Death Rate - washingtonpost.com


And also please tell me which state in the Union rations health care?
For everybody out there that thinks they are going to get something from the government for "free" Please explain to me why you are going to be paying into a system for Four years before receiving any benefit.
Did I answer you question?

According to Heartland Org, it's Oregon. If the voters of Oregon allow that, shame on them. There is usually more to a story than Heartland prints, but I will take the info at face value. I could use 'the sky is falling' argument as was applied in the AGW debate - ah, the good old days Except in this case voters can correct problems.

I expect nothing free. This is not about the government providing free health care. It is about a sane health care insurance system - which we agree is needed and preferred by a majority.

It will take 4 years to fully adapt to, configure and capitalize the system. I prefer that to more deficits, don't you? In any case, some benefits are immediate (tax credits to small business for one) and others occur in six months, some in one year.

I must go and change out my snow tires. If the thread is still open later, I will answer your question.
Dave.

 

[brin]

Before the government got involved in Health Care, as recently as the late 1970's...People had health insurance that wanted it but it was for hospital and surgical care, it kept people from going broke if they got sick. Back then when you went to the Doctor , bought drugs or had lab tests - you paid for it..there was no co pay or insurance involved. Since this was the case people thought twice before going for treatment to be sure they really were sick..now all they think of is the co pay..Well it's only $30.00 or whatever so I may as well go in..further there is no consumer involvment anymore..no price comparisons..Instead it is a game between the Insurance companies and the Doctors, Big Pharma etc . and now the US Government..So the free maket is no more in health care and as a result costs will continue to rise astronomically and there will be rationing of health care and long waits for a doctor appointment and even longer waits in the waiting room fro the sub standard care. Many doctors will stop accepting insurance and many other doctors will close and leave medicine. What incentive will their be for young graduates to enter Medical school ? Be careful what you wish for...you are going to get it. Why do you think most of this dies not take affect until after the next Presidential election ? Hmmmmm ?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

The government is not running healthcare. It is attempting to force the health care market to function as it must. That is no different than the SEC enforcing banking and trading rules. Rant if you must, but how many people would invest in securities if the SEC was not at least minimally effective?

What a fiction - 'plenty of people are very happy'. Would that include all the consumers who are seeing rate increases at multiples of 5 or 10 times the rate of inflation? Would that include small businesses who are priced out of the market? You want to call them whiners and complainers? Nice.

Nobody said spending less for the sake of spending less is a virtue, although it is an important aspect of capitalism - in case you missed that. What people want is VALUE. They are getting less and less value for their health care dollars. It is perfectly valid to compare our costs and results to other countries. That would be the basis for competition, comparing value. We do it everyday and it is another time-homored capitalist method. In case you didn't notice, we are in competition with other countries.

Whatever our 'costs' are, they are out of control. If individuals are truly making individual choices, then why are costs not responding. Hmmm, could it be you can't order your appendix removal online from across the country? You are attempting to apply supply and demand principles to a situation where the market is constrained by geography and practicality. There is hardly any functioning market for health services. Do you get online quotes from 10 doctors before scheduling your annual physical? Would you want to?
Dave.

Good Morning:
First ,Dave you make a another good point about the government not running health care. Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom" and you pointed out, that he doesn't believe in total laissez-faire capitalism. His view is that government should set up parameters around which business and commerce function
Your example, of the SEC is an excellent one.
Hayek also makes the point that while the government makes the rules ,they have to apply to all equally and people should be able to count on the rules not changing, so that they can make economic decisions with a degree of certainty that the rules won't change.
The Brits were great at this, they set up may colonial govts that were based on British jurisprudence, and they flourished.
Also your point about competition is spot on, competition lowers price and improves quality.
Perhaps you wouldn't want to shop around for a new heart valve, but you might want to shop around for a different insurance company, if the GOVERNMENT allowed insurance companies to sell across state lines.
BTW did a google search "MRSA rates UK vs US" and this is what I came up with
England=9%
Netherlands=7%
Spain-Denmark=8%
France=6-10%
US=5-10%
So it wouldn't seem to be a great difference.
What I referred to was BASIC hygiene. I am pretty sure that 20% of US hospitals wouldn't fail
So I guess the basic question is: Do you trust the government to "Do the right thing"
I think I can point out more examples in the negative than you can find for the plus side