Health Care Passes in House 220-215

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Cuba!

I win.

[Balog]

The inefficiencies in the current system are largely a result of .gov interference. Medicare/caid etc.

We. Already. Have. Socialized. Medicine. This just expands it. I'd love to see the Australian model copied, where public and private systems are totally separated. Stops the socialist systems from dragging the free market down, and keeps the whiny liberals happy by stealing from the productive to "help" the looters.

[Monkeyleg]

In my view, the American voter asked for socialism in the 2008 election.  Obama did little to hide who and what he really is, a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.  Sure, some of his handlers and the MSM tried to portray him as a centrist, their thinking being that no one would vote for a socialist.  But Obama himself did nothing to steer the voter away from that understanding.  It was very clear to anyone who bothered to look into the man's background what his beliefs were.  The information was freely accessible from reputable sources.
So, the American voter voted for socialism the last time around.  They asked for it, they should get it, and hard.  I hope it hurts.

RocketMan, I don't think half the population voted for socialism. They were duped by the media, by Obama's soaring voice, and by their own blind craving for "change."

It was easy to find out what Obama was really saying, but people weren't finding it in the usual locations. You had to go out of your way to read the stories.

I read an article the other day about Iowa voters who went for Obama. One man summed it up nicely when he asked, "what did we do?"

[Balog]

2008 wasn't a vote for socialism, not entirely. The hard left came out in droves, obviously but I don't think the majority were hard left. I think they were either naive/stupid youngsters who haven't been taught to think logically or look beyond narrative. or people who weren't politically aware/cynical enough to realize how tingly Obama made the media in their special areas.

[makattak]

You mean that they could afford as much gasoline as they ever wanted, provided that there actually were any gasoline to be had?

That was rather the point...

[De Selby]

Name one, anywhere in the world, go ahead.

 

Sure - Australia.  The standard of care is just as high, there is a public system if you want to wait instead of paying for elective surgery, and there is a private system if you want to pay instead of waiting for elective surgery.  The public system is on average better if you need non-elective surgery, so most people go there when they are in serious trouble.

Private health insurance runs around $70 a month if you want to access the private system on a regular basis - it's a good idea if you need sports medicine or have some specialty treatments you want to get over time.

The difference in prices is astounding between here and the US.  If you just straight walk into a doctor's office with no insurance and pay for whatever you get right there, you can expect an average bill in the hundreds when you factor in prescriptions and any medicine.

Do the same here, and the total bill in the most expensive city from a good private doctor is $60 plus $20 for your tests, prescription, and basic meds.  Insured people get most of that back.

[MicroBalrog]

This is a case of Obama doing the opposite of socialism - he's going with the private model and guaranteeing it more money, in a round about way, more longevity where it is unsustainable.

Capitalism is not about rich people making more money. Capitalism is about people, whether rich or otherwise, making money from an exchange of goods and services. Pointing a gun at me and forcing me to buy your goods and services is in itself not any kind of capitalism. It may not be socialism, I grant you that, but it is not capitalism in any meaningful way, just as taxes are not a form of capitalism.

It's true that America's health care system is not as cheap as it could be, but it's also patently true that America's health care system is not a free market system, and it has not been a free market system for decades upon decades, quite likely at least since the 1960's.

I generally abstain from commenting in this field, because I do not quite understand the statistics and terms involved, however I do know that much.

[De Selby]

If it's not a free market system, why are conservatives in America defending it so staunchly?

In any case, it is certainly not the government's limited involvement in health care that is driving the prices.  The only identifiable factor in making it so expensive compared to other systems is the army of administrators and reviewers that are employed by insurance companies to review and evaluate claims, coupled with the hospitals' knowledge that uninsured people have zero bargaining power.

As a result, people who get insurance have a good chunk of their money spent on people whose job it is to find reasons to deny care, and people who do not get insurance pay the hospitals exorbitant fees, because the hospitals only bargain for real with big insurance companies.

[MicroBalrog]

If it's not a free market system, why are conservatives in America defending it so staunchly?

...because Obama's reforms seem to be even more interventionist than the current system?

[De Selby]

...because Obama's reforms seem to be even more interventionist than the current system?

Who's proposing to make it "less interventionist", and how will that result in reasonable pricing?

This whole issue sours me on pure free market principles.  I look around and see an obvious example of private ownership and business failing miserably to provide even as good a service as governments.  It appears that some things simply do not result in better outcomes when in private hands.

To some people, it's more important to preserve private systems on principle.  But for my part, I'm not willing to pay ten times the price for an equivalent or poorer quality service so that someone else can own a hospital and profit from it privately.

[mtnbkr]

The difference in prices is astounding between here and the US.  If you just straight walk into a doctor's office with no insurance and pay for whatever you get right there, you can expect an average bill in the hundreds when you factor in prescriptions and any medicine.

Not true.  In 2008, we were traveling from Mobile, Al to Va.  My wife and I came down with a severe case of bronchitis.  Not wanting to deal with trying to find a doctor in our "network" for insurance, we went to a "doc in a box" a local strip mall.  It cost us $50 each plus meds (antibiotics and a heavy duty cough medicine for myself).  I don't recall the meds, but they didn't run more than $10-$15 for each of us.  Hardly hundreds...

Modified to add: Had we gone to a doctor that accepted our insurance, it would have cost us $20 each plus the insurance adjusted price for the drugs.

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

Who's proposing to make it "less interventionist", and how will that result in reasonable pricing?

Nobody is proposing to make it less interventionist. Thank you for pinpointing the problem.

[makattak]

Who's proposing to make it "less interventionist", and how will that result in reasonable pricing?

This whole issue sours me on pure free market principles.  I look around and see an obvious example of private ownership and business failing miserably to provide even as good a service as governments.   It appears that some things simply do not result in better outcomes when in private hands.

To some people, it's more important to preserve private systems on principle.  But for my part, I'm not willing to pay ten times the price for an equivalent or poorer quality service so that someone else can own a hospital and profit from it privately.

You look around and see that "obvious example" that runs counter to EVERY SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE of the government producing services.

Rather than accept that this is some strange case where the government does it better, maybe you should look to what is ACTUALLY happening?

This is why schools fail people in teaching economics, you have to look beyond the obvious to the secondary causes.

If you see a bird flying do you accept that gravity doesn't apply to them or do you look at how they are bypassing the laws of gravity? (Or, as in the case of governments, do you accept that despite the fact the government has proven itself to be inefficient, slow, and low quality it can provide medicine that goes against that rule or do you look into how they are bypassing the laws of economics?- Of note, they can short circuit the laws of economics for a time. They will not be able to do so indefinitely and the impending collapse of these socialist societies will be the result.)

[Monkeyleg]

Shootinstudent, please show me an example of anything the government does more efficiently than private business. At this point I'm 100% certain that if I ran a lemonade stand, you'd say it sours you on free market principles.

If any mutual fund operated the way Social Security does, the board of directors would be in jail. Ditto for any insurance company that was run like Medicare.

There are three major reasons why health costs are higher than in years past. One is the biggie: advancements in technology, which are costly but incredibly more efficient. The second is Medicare. Doctors and hospitals treating Medicare patients are losing money on the deal, and so transfer the lost money to those with insurance. The third is the number of people who don't have insurance who are treated, and the costs for the free services are passed on to those with insurance.

If doctors and hospitals could bill Medicare at full rate, your health care costs would go down. Your taxes would go up astronomically, but your health care costs would go down.

[RoadKingLarry]

Cuba!

I win.

If you think Cuba is

delivering equivalent levels of service

to the US system you are either delusional or are being intellectualy dishonest.  

You lose.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

yea folks sneak into cuba for health care all the time.  maybe they can cure mike moore  they do bariatric medicine?

[sanglant]

If you think Cuba is  to the US system you are either delusional or are being intellectualy dishonest.  

You lose.

and need to move to cuba atleast you'll be able to get good smokes cheap

[Racehorse]

There are three major reasons why health costs are higher than in years past. One is the biggie: advancements in technology, which are costly but incredibly more efficient. The second is Medicare. Doctors and hospitals treating Medicare patients are losing money on the deal, and so transfer the lost money to those with insurance. The third is the number of people who don't have insurance who are treated, and the costs for the free services are passed on to those with insurance.

Good summary. I'd also add a fourth. Malpractice insurance has become ridiculously expensive for most doctors, meaning they have to charge more for services.

[makattak]

Good summary. I'd also add a fourth. Malpractice insurance has become ridiculously expensive for most doctors, meaning they have to charge more for services.

AND practice defensive medicine (i.e. order more tests inter alia) which also costs more.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you think Cuba is  to the US system you are either delusional or are being intellectualy dishonest.  

You lose.

Perhaps my sarcasm didn't come through strongly enough.

[roo_ster]

"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."
----John Derbyshire

Anyways, the closest doc in the box to my house doesn't accpt my insurance, yet.  $59 for a visit and $4 for generic augmentin at Wal-mart across the street.

If one can't afford that, cancel the cable TV and swear off the smokes & chee-tos for a month.

[MikeB]

There are three major reasons why health costs are higher than in years past. One is the biggie: advancements in technology, which are costly but incredibly more efficient. The second is Medicare. Doctors and hospitals treating Medicare patients are losing money on the deal, and so transfer the lost money to those with insurance. The third is the number of people who don't have insurance who are treated, and the costs for the free services are passed on to those with insurance.

You missed two big ones. The regulations on manufacturers of medical devices by the FDA greatly increase the cost to engineer, manufacture and deliver said device. This causes the cost of the device to a provider to increase greatly, thus the price charged to people diagnosed, treated, etc. by the device increase. Yeah some of this is patient safety, but there is no denying it is a contributor to the rising costs of health care.

Secondly if you produce medications, especially narcotics you have greatly increased costs in labor and tracking of said narcotics to comply with DEA regulations.

Both examples of government regulation actually increasing not decreasing costs of health care. I don't believe I have ever seen a government regulation decrease a cost of goods or services.

[Monkeyleg]

I don't believe I have ever seen a government regulation decrease a cost of goods or services.

But Obama said that the healthcare bill will lower healthcare costs. It must be true, because my newspaper said so.

[RocketMan]

Another item missed are the onerous regulations placed on insurance companies, among which are those that stifle true brand competition across state lines.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Don't forget the fact that the American health care consumer subsidizes medical research costs for foreign nations.