11/04/2009 04:52:16 AM EST

Healthcareproviders and preexisting conditions

posted by Thothlike

The big debate in the congress (and the public) right now is about healthcare reform and the public option...

Now I'm not american (even though I lived in New York, NY in the early 90'ies) so my oppinion may not carry as much weight...

But I have a surgestion to all americans who have been denied healthcare because of preexisting conditions (and other reasons)... and The Young Turks community...

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Whether or not the public option (which I am in favor of) gets passed there's a lot you personally can do to change the way the insurance compagnies do business...

You see there's no question that these compagnies are profitdriven... and if you want them to change you have to hit them where it hurts... their wallet...

And here the TYT Nation can help A LOT because they as a progressive movement are in a unique position to reach the people affected...

So lets start with the most obvious area where the most ridicoulus denials with the most dire consequences have been made and then go from there...

So why don't TYT create a website where people that have been denied coverage because of preexisting condition which have resulted in death (that gives you a fairly large pool to choose from) can write their story and contactinformation on...

Then you take this list and give it to an organisation that have legal expertice in all 50 states like the ACLU (or others... you choose) and they in conjunction with TYT go through the cases and pick state by state the most obvious and ludicrous denials and then bring class actions suits on their behalf in all 50 states...

Now lets say that out of all the denials you get 50 cases in California that are so straight forward and obvious that you can use them and you sue for 10mill in compensation/person (just an example - I believe you would have more cases and could sue for more than 10mill for invertently killing your familymember by ludicrously denying them coverage - but the final numbers can be decided by the lawyers)... that will slap the californian insurance compagnies with a bill of 500mill dollars...

Then you find 10 obvious cases (again I believe more cases are possible) in Arizona which will slap those insurance compagnies with a bill of 100mill in that state

Then you find 60 cases in New York... that will slap them with a bill of 600mill in that state

Then you.... (keep going round the country slapping them with bills running up into several billions)...

You don't think they'll start thinking twice before denying people for preexisting condition after that???

But now you have a STRONG precedence... so if they haven't listened and started covering preexisting conditions after paying billions of dollars you make another round of more cases costing them even more billions... and then you keep going until they do or are out of business (in which case there is no other option than a public option and everybody wins)...

Now you have taken care of preexisting conditions you move on the the next issue (an obvious choice would be the 5% and 95% discrimination against 'overweight' and 'underweight' people... but you can decide from there) and do the same thing... all-in-all bypassing Washington so you get the change you want no matter what the lobbyist and senators and congressmen decide... you the people decide...

Just a surgestion from a conserned foreigner :-D

Love Thothlike

[Update] 11-07-2009
Ok I've contacted ACLU and asked them whether such a lawsuit would even be possible but they wouldn't give me an answer over email... they instead surgested that I visit my 'local' affiliate...


Now I'm from Denmark so I don't know where exactly my 'local' affiliate is located so I didn't go and therefor I don't know... but if you're american you can check it out :-D


As mentioned I'm not american so this is really not my fight... and I can not tell you whether you should fight this or not... that's up to you and you alone... this is YOUR fight if you want it...


This is just a surgestion if YOU want to change things (no matter what Washington does)...

But if YOU do wanna change things this is what you can do...


1. Create a webpage (fx. like Alan Grayson's page) on where people can write their cases of denials and their contact information (in case you decide to use their case in the lawsuit)...


2. Drum up awareness for the webpage to get the most cases (ask progressive media like TYT, moveon.org, etc to say something about it - <you be creative>... organize protests - print flyers - make your own youtube-channel etc.)...


3. When enough cases have been presented on the webpage take the list to an advocacy group with legal experiance in all 50 states (like ACLU... or you choose) and with their help pick the best cases and start filling lawsuits...


4. Change the system... :-D


All this course of action takes is ONE person who starts this up who wants to make a better america for all... and if you want that person could be you... or not... you live in a free country so that's totally up to you...


But that means that there is no excuse if you want to change things (no I'm just one person... what can I do?... well this is one thing!!!)...


So if you choose to not do something then you can't come and complain afterwards about the outragous practices of the insurance compagnies... cause you could have helped to change it if you wanted... I'm not saying... I' just saying :-D


It's now in YOUR hands :-D


Love Thothlike
< Obama: The Central Question of Our Time (AOL Poll) | 2000 Recount and Liberal Mythology >

Poll

Do you think it's a good idea to collect cases and file class action lawsuits against the insurance compagnies to get them to cover preexisting conditions as surgested in this article?
Yes, I think it's a great idea 40%
No, I think it's a bad idea 40%
I have no idea at all 20%

Votes: 5
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Healthcareproviders and preexisting conditions | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
Indesurgestion (none / 1)
But I have a surgestion to all americans who have been denied healthcare because of preexisting conditions

You're confusing health care with health insurance. Doctors routinely treat patients with preexisting conditions; that's their job. It's not the insurance companies' job to pay for it, though.

Imagine that your house caught fire and you had no insurance to cover the damage, so you quickly phoned an insurance company. Would it be unfair if that insurance company refused to cover your burning house's preexisting condition?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/04/2009 08:05:47 AM EST

Perhaps in a perfect world... (none / 0)
In a perfect world yes I would be confusing healthcare with healthinsurance in my article...

But in america they are the same thing...

Healthcare costs (payment to hospitals and doctors for treatment and subsequently drugs) are so high that the middle- and lower-class can't afford to get treated for even the most simple diseases and therefor for all intentive purposes healthcare equals healthinsurence in america...

Now with a public option or universal healthcare as we have in Europe or healthcare that is affordable for the majority of people we're having a different conversation... but that's not the case here...

And my point is - absent an affordable healthcare (whether it is in lowering prizes or getting a public option/universal healthcare) you need affordable comprehencive coverage by the insurance compagnies and this would be a way to do it if Washington woun't change things...

Now your argument by examble (the house burning) is a flawed one...

In your examble the house has allready burned down when you seek insurance which by comparison would be I get diagnosed with heartproblems and then seek insurance to cover me after the fact...

but that's not the issue with preexisting conditions...
The correct examble in this case would be my house is fine and I buy insurance... then my house burn down much later due to an electrical shortage in the wiring and I then get denied coverage for my burned down house because the house had the preexisting condition of faulty wiring... something not known to me when I signed the insurance-papers...

And in this case yes it is not acceptable that they deny me coverage (but maybe that's just my opinion)... :-D

And last... to answer your last comment 'If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."' the answer to that is very simple... NOTHING is free...

My contension is that the 'free' version (ie public option which would just be another insurance-provider paid for by premiums or universal healthcare which would be payed for by taxes) is way cheaper than the private insurance model...

To back up my claim you only have to see how much people in other countries with universal healthcare pay for their healthcare...

I am danish and therefor live in a country with universal healthcare... so lets use me as an examble...

Lets presurpose that ALL my taxes payed so far went to providing healthcare for me (nothing went to the schools or police or benifits if I get unemployed etc.)...

I started paying taxes at the age of 16 and are now 37... for this argument I visited my governments homepage to find out how much I have payed totally so far in my life...
I have so far payed 302.400$ (todays rate of exchange) from the age of 16 to 37...

For that I have gotten so far...
All my vacinations (even some extra as an adult for traveling to exotic places like africa etc.)...

Countless homevisits from a doctor throughout my life for everything from a sore throat to serious influenca (and once for dehydration after falling asleep in a tanning bed) :-D

14 days in the hospital and treatment (read: pumped full of antibiotics) for meningitis at age 12...

A checkup every 6 month (preventive care... something I wouldn't have gotten if I had to pay thousands of dollars every time)...

The removal of 2 vorts on my feet at age 32...

And I could go on... ALL at no extra cost and no denial for ANYTHING incl. preexixting condition or being in the 5% or 95% procentile or... etc.)...

Now I don't know exactly how much each of these things would cost me in the US but you fill in the costs and tell me if I have payed to much... :-D

On top of that I have gotten...
Benefits for a total of 13 month in my life for being unemployed at aprox. 1.500$/month...

Elementary school and high school and college at no extra cost and during my 7 years in college I on top of that got aprox. 700$/month in student aid...

And again I could go on....

And later when I turn 65 I can retire and look forward to aprox. 1300$/month for the rest of my life in benefits...

On top of that my taxes (and everybody elses) also pay for the police... the firedepartment... the post office... etc. as it does in the US)...

So if you subtrract all the percentile cost for school and benefits and police and all the other things... from my total payment in taxes you get a much lower number that I have payed for my healthcare... me personaly I think I got a good deal and so does also EVERY poll in Denmark that shows in the high 90'ies procentile in favor of keeping universal healthcare as opposed to switch to private healthinsurance (the same as in ALL other european countries)... so we the public LOVES it...

But you do the math and see which is cheapest (and consider that we on top of everything are covered from birth even before we start paying for it until the day we die long after we stop paying for it with no denials for ANYTHING)...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 09:27:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cheese danish and fresh squeezed orange juice (none / 0)
Now I don't know exactly how much each of these things would cost me in the US but you fill in the costs and tell me if I have payed to much...

You paid too much.

I have so far payed 302.400$ (todays rate of exchange) from the age of 16 to 37...

Guess what one-third to one-half of your taxes could buy in a nice town in a nice red state.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/04/2009 11:54:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
not really the point... (none / 0)
We are not talking about buying a house here... sure if I hadn't used any healthcare in my life and hadn't gone to school or used the police when I got mugged at age 18 or... etc. then you could say I got ripped off and could have used those money to buy a house... I would also have died at age 12 of meningitis but hey who cares right? :-s

But I own my own house even with all the taxes I have paid so that's not really an issue...

The issue is... if you compare the cost of the healthcare that I have recieved during my lifetime (with no insurance) in the US (getting housecalls from a doctor xx.xx$*x amount of times + hospitalized for 2 weeks with treatment and drugs for meningitis xx.xx$ + getting all my vacinations xx.xx$ + ... etc. = xx.xx$ - you fill in the blanck numbers) and what I have paid so far for healthcare in taxes would I have paid more or less with no insurance in the US than with the money I have paid for healthcare so far in taxes?

And more to the point... what would I have had to have paid to have been covered from age 0 till age 37 if I had to buy healthinsurance in the US?

And not only that but even if (which I don't think you'll find when you run the numbers but still...) I payed a little more than health insurance from age 0 to age 37 would have cost me in the US I would still have gotten better insurance that covers preventive care and is without the possibility of exclusion for ANYTHING... plus benifits and police and a no extra cost college-degree etc... so I still think I got the better deal :-D

Now if you really want to run the numbers... I presurposed that ALL my taxes went to healthcare (which it offcourse doesn't) so let me give you the exact amount I have paid directly to healthcare in my life so far...
Denmark uses 18% of it's GNP on the healthcare system so it goes without saying that 18% of my taxes (and the taxes of everyone else) went to healthcare... so I have paid 18% of 302.400$ = 54.432$ in total in healthcare for the coverage I have recieved so far... still think I got a bad deal? :-D

But the point was that even if I had paid 100% (302.400$) in healthcare I still would have gotten a better deal... so only 18% (54.432$) is a hell of a deal... :-D

There really is no argument for not getting universal healthcare... you get better coverage without denials and it's cheaper... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 12:51:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pointy (none / 0)
My health insurance costs less than one hundred dollars per month. Still think you're getting a good deal?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/04/2009 03:41:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
ah yes...

100$*12 month*37 years = 44.400$ I would have had to have paid under your plan for healthcare so far...

Now I paid 54.432$ for the same period which amount to 122,59$/month...
For that extra 22,59$/month I got (on top of what your insurance provide) preventive care - housecalls from doctors no matter how small the problem - a stress free life knowing that no matter what decease I might get I'm covered for no extra charge and can NEVER be denied so even if I get cancer or need very expensive surgery in the future... no matter the cost... I'm covered and my premiums stay the same until I'm 65 at which time it drops to 0$/month and I'm still covered no matter what - plus all the other little benefits... so yes I think I got the better deal...

Now if I keep my job (meaning my tax-amount stay the same from now on until I'm 65) by the time I reach the average lifeexpectency of 79,9 years in Denmark my average monthly payment for my whole life will have dropped to 59$/month (and just imagine how cheap it gets if I get even older) :-D...

So yes I clearly got the best deal...
If I died today I would have gotten the better deal... and if I live to be the lifeexpectency of 79.9 years it's not even a contest...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 04:09:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh hmmm (none / 1)
100$*12 month*37 years = 44.400$ I would have had to have paid under your plan for healthcare so far...

Wrong. I pay less than one hundred bucks now. I paid far less ten years ago. You have drastically overestimated how much I have paid for health insurance.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/06/2009 03:05:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Imperfect world (none / 0)
The correct examble in this case would be my house is fine and I buy insurance... then my house burn down much later due to an electrical shortage in the wiring and I then get denied coverage for my burned down house because the house had the preexisting condition of faulty wiring... something not known to me when I signed the insurance-papers...

If you knew the house had faulty wiring and then lied about the condition of the wiring in order to get cheaper insurance, you deserve to be denied payment. If you had no knowledge of the wiring's condition and never lied about it, then you did not defraud the insurance company and deserve to be paid for your loss.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/04/2009 12:17:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thothlike, in this response to TWBA,... (none / 1)

...you are underestimating the state of the American Conservative Movement.  You are using logic, math, appropriate analogies, facts, a grasp of the problem, and a solution based on empirical data typified by your experience in Denmark.  But the American Right (exemplified by TWBA) has literally gone insane, and none of those things mean anything to their arguments.

As a defacto rule, America is "the best in the world at everything," so any arguments about your health care in Denmark are blocked out of their minds.  As a defacto rule, "Conservatives know about saving money and Liberals know about spending money," so your anecdotes about paying almost no money for comprehensive health care (ranked by the WHO as better than the US's care) is blocked out.   As a defacto rule, everything run by any level of government is evil and represents a takeover of the "American Dream," so even your discussion about how you want the Fire Department to protect your house is blocked from their mind, let alone wanting the Federal Government to actually require some ground rules of the Insurance companies.  As a defacto rule, Conservatives are entitled to "their facts too", complete with sites and programs that revise history, re-write Darwin, and intentionally promulgate untrue or misleading data.  And those on the Right to which these people slavishly devote their support are constantly and effectively convincing them to vote _against_ their own interests, health care and otherwise, and are blaming every problem on phantoms and conspiracy theories and on the same poor that your solution is trying to help. 

On top of this, no Conservative is currently interested in finding a solution to this or any other problem.  They say they are, they may believe they are, but they believe several contradictory things at once--all in a naked effort to crush Obama (who they falsely view as Liberal) and Liberalism in the name of "Jesus, guns and 'freedom'."  You are essentially trying to reason with a more ignorant variety of Al Queda over an issue in which you advocate for a few billionaires to give up a tiny bit of their bribery and racketeering scheme for the good of 50 million people.  GOOD LUCK in that argument.

It's ok.  Obama is foolish enough to try to reason with and bargain with the American Right also.  It has done him about as much good as it will do you.  You can't have a serious conversation with a crazy person, and the Right is now (and has been in increasing intensity since 9/11/01) officially crazy.

by Milltycoon on 11/04/2009 01:23:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
love your analogies... (none / 0)
I have followed the debate about healthcare and can only agree with you 100% in your analogies about the US political right...

But to quote my favorite immortal caracter from Douglas Adams 'A hitchikers guide to the galaxy' when people told him that his endeavor of insulting everybody in the entire universe in alphabetical order was imposible.... a man can allways hope :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 01:32:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oh and... (none / 0)
Oh and my original point was not to argue a public option or universal healthcare but a sugestion as how to change the system without the lobbyist and the weak senate etc.

Therefor it was directed at the more sensible progressives on how to take action...

So please vote in my TYT poll so we can see how popular this course of action is and if it's popular enough then go ahead an implement it... the revolution is here :-D

But like I said good points :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 01:39:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reply (none / 0)


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/04/2009 03:45:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Ok first of all CF&P are a extrem right-wing advocacy group in the Netherlands and Alina Vanderbrock that made this presentation is a former member of the Neo-Nazi parti in the Netherlands... so this is who you choose to take your advice from? :-o

But fine let's look at what she says...

1. Universal coverage is not universal healthcare...
Claiming that universal coverage equals long waiting lines...
That is simply not true...
Again let me use Denmark as an example but roughly the same things can be found in most European countries (I say most because I don't have all the details of ALL the European countries but I know it aplies to most and I think it aplies to all)...
In Denmark we have waitinglist garanties which meens that in fx cancer the garanty is 3 weeks which meens you are NEVER gonna wait more than 3 weeks for cancer treatment and that is ONLY if your doctor deems that you're ok waiting 3 weeks... if the cancer is acute then to get treatment instantly...

For heartsurgery it's 4 weeks and again ONLY if you can wait 4 weeks otherwise you get treatment instantly...

And it ranges up to minor surgery which is 5 weeks which is the maximum for anything hospital related...

If it's just something you need to see your private doctor for you can get an apointment the next day (weekends excluded) and get it fixed...

So anything necessary = no waiting list and things that can wait = ranging from 3 to 5 weeks depending on your problem...

And in NO case does the goverment decide anything related to your treatment... ONLY you and your doctor can do that... the government just pays whatever bill the doctor sends them...

2. Mandates mean government control
Claiming that the government decides what cares you can have and prevent others...
This I have answered in point 1. and argued in other post (ie you and your doctor can decide that a more expencive treatment abroad (even experimental ones) is better for you than anything we can provide and the government stays out of the decision and just pays for everything incl travel and treatment... so just flat out wrong...

3. Price controls never works
So if the government keeps prizes down thereby lowering costs that equals everything more expencive... yeah that one I just don't get :-s

Then she comes with some number that 88% of all medical costs are paid by thirdparty providers (which she explains is insurance and the government)... hmmm yeah if you pay premiums shouldn't that number be 100%... I'm not saying... I'm just saying... oh I forgot about preexisting conditions etc... something that we don't have in universal healthcare...

All in all a former nazi speaking for a right-wing group making stupid and false arguments for NO government (incl your medicare and medicaid)...

But hey it's a free country and you are free to believe anyone and anything regardless of facts and thank God for that :-D

The only true bad thing she said about European universal healthcare was that the costs are going up... but even that is only a half truth...

Yes it's true that health care costs is going up... but that's because the population is increasing... but that also meens more taxes and the spending since the early 90'ies has stayed a constant 18% of the BNP... but true the dollar amount has gone up but not the percentile of healthcare cost... so I rest my case...

Love Thothlike


by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 05:07:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (none / 1)
Ok first of all CF&P are a extrem right-wing advocacy group in the Netherlands...

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity (CF&P) is a non-profit organization in Virginia.

...Alina Vanderbrock that made this presentation is a former member of the Neo-Nazi parti in the Netherlands...

"Eline van den Broek is the founder of the European Independent Institute, the only independent free market think tank in the Netherlands. After graduating from Utrecht University's honours college in 2002, where she specialized in economics, law and political science, Eline graduated cum laude in political science from Leiden University in 2003. After her master thesis investigation "To what extent did the media subsidize political parties during the election campaigns in 2003?", Eline was especially motivated to compensate for the left-wing bias in the media and shortly thereafter joined the conservative think tank Edmund Burke Foundation to work on healthcare policy. When, in the summer of 2005, the foundation's board decided to stop the public policy program to pursue the educational program for university students, Eline took the inititative to raise a new independent public policy institute to continue with and elaborate on EBF's expertise and network in the public policy field.Eline is working on a range of healthcare projects, specializing in cost containment policies in Europe. As a fellow with several free market think tanks, Eline works both in the Netherlands and abroad, and tries to (re)formulate alternatives to healthcare systems and healthcare funding.She has contributed to many websites, published many op-eds in (inter)national newspapers and magazines, and is frequently seen and heard in the Dutch media." [How about enabling the blockquote some day?]

All in all a former nazi...

Prove it.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/06/2009 05:07:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Prove it! (none / 1)
Still waiting, asshole.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/09/2009 07:00:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NB: (none / 0)
(Turnaround time on asking Twba/Qwerty to support one of his outlandish arguments has been shown to be two weeks or more.)

by OneHitKill on 11/09/2009 09:34:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 1)
Just give the one rating and move along. You have nothing to add to the conversation.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/11/2009 08:29:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
To be fair (none / 0)
I don't rate all your comments 1. Just the ones that suck ass-trash.

by OneHitKill on 11/11/2009 11:18:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
asshole??? (none / 0)
how about you grow up... instead of bothering the adults when they are talking...

you are right... CF&P are a conservative thinktank in the US... my bad... I was so focused on Vanderbrook that I just assumed that it was made by her group the Edmund Burke Foundation (a rightwing group based in the Netherlands that she was/is? a member of) because the message was so eeriely similar to theirs... but when you are right you are right and I apoligize (see this is how adults act when the make a mistake... they apologize)...

that being said... that doesn't take away the fact that she in her teens was a prominent member of the neo-nazi youth party and today is best known for her public outbusts on TV and radio on racial hatred of first jews and since 9/11 muslims calling for them all to be send home to 'Muhammedanien' (some made up country where she thinks all muslims come from) and other nazi/extreme rightwing talking points... plus her (in europe) fringe views on universal healthcare (I say fringe becase as mentioned earlier support of universal healthcare in europe is in the 90'es percentile)...

so I stand by my previous post... unsubstansiated claims made by a former nazi... and I ask again... is this really who you want to base your healthcare on???

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/10/2009 10:26:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 1)
Keep attacking the messenger; you have nothing for her message.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/11/2009 08:37:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Too damn slow (none / 1)
Keep attacking the messenger

Oh, you're a messenger? Then be fucking punctual.

by OneHitKill on 11/11/2009 11:19:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn sloe gin (none / 1)
Too damn slow (none / 1)
Keep attacking the messenger

Oh, you're a messenger? Then be fucking punctual.

by OneHitKill

How would you rate your asstrash suckfest?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 08:28:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A fun, wild romp (none / 0)
A roller-coaster ride. A triumph of the human spirit. It was better than Cats. I'm going to read it again and again.

by OneHitKill on 11/14/2009 04:31:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing for the message??? (none / 0)
Seriously... are you retarded or just forgetfull???

But fine I'll repeat myself from my original answer to your video...
<quote>
1. Universal coverage is not universal healthcare...
Claiming that universal coverage equals long waiting lines...
That is simply not true...
Again let me use Denmark as an example but roughly the same things can be found in most European countries (I say most because I don't have all the details of ALL the European countries but I know it aplies to most and I think it aplies to all)...
In Denmark we have waitinglist garanties which meens that in fx cancer the garanty is 3 weeks which meens you are NEVER gonna wait more than 3 weeks for cancer treatment and that is ONLY if your doctor deems that you're ok waiting 3 weeks... if the cancer is acute then to get treatment instantly...

For heartsurgery it's 4 weeks and again ONLY if you can wait 4 weeks otherwise you get treatment instantly...

And it ranges up to minor surgery which is 5 weeks which is the maximum for anything hospital related...

If it's just something you need to see your private doctor for you can get an apointment the next day (weekends excluded) and get it fixed...

So anything necessary = no waiting list and things that can wait = ranging from 3 to 5 weeks depending on your problem...

And in NO case does the goverment decide anything related to your treatment... ONLY you and your doctor can do that... the government just pays whatever bill the doctor sends them...

2. Mandates mean government control
Claiming that the government decides what cares you can have and prevent others...
This I have answered in point 1. and argued in other post (ie you and your doctor can decide that a more expencive treatment abroad (even experimental ones) is better for you than anything we can provide and the government stays out of the decision and just pays for everything incl travel and treatment... so just flat out wrong...

3. Price controls never works
So if the government keeps prizes down thereby lowering costs that equals everything more expencive... yeah that one I just don't get :-s

Then she comes with some number that 88% of all medical costs are paid by thirdparty providers (which she explains is insurance and the government)... hmmm yeah if you pay premiums shouldn't that number be 100%... I'm not saying... I'm just saying... oh I forgot about preexisting conditions etc... something that we don't have in universal healthcare...
<end quote>

Like you can see I had/have a lot to say about the message too...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/12/2009 06:13:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing for the massage (none / 1)
Price controls never works
So if the government keeps prizes down thereby lowering costs that equals everything more expencive... yeah that one I just don't get :-s

Price controls cause shortages.

Then she comes with some number that 88% of all medical costs are paid by thirdparty providers (which she explains is insurance and the government)... hmmm yeah if you pay premiums shouldn't that number be 100%...

No.

Seriously... are you retarded or just forgetfull?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 06:42:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
:-D (none / 1)
Thank you for returning to trying to make an argument for your case instead of just calling me an asshole etc... (yeah I know you threw my namecalling 'Seriously... are you retarded or just forgetfull' of you back in my face but that's fine... if I can't take what I dish out I shouldn't dish it out to begin with :-D

You're arguments are still wrong but at least you're trying :-D

But let's take the article you've sitet as you're argument for why pricecontrols doesn't work...

First of all it's allways a good thing to start with finding out where the author is coming from (what his premis is)...

Now I don't know him personally but he is a writer for a magazine called 'capitalism magazine'... which means he is probably a strong proponent of a free marked without regulation of any kind... but if that's his premis (all regulation is bad) and he concludes in the end that a specific regulation is bad then that's just a circular argument and as such holds NO value... (essetially he's saying - if all regulations are bad then this regulation is bad... this is logically true but holds no information and therefor is worthless)...

But like I said... I don't know him and on the off chance that he is not starting from that premise but thinks that some regulation is good... just not this one... let's look at his argumentation...

he starts by siting hawaii's attemt in 2002 to control oilprizes and then speculates why they differed it to 2004 and that it was because they knew that it would have bad concequences so they differed it till after the elections and then states that as fact...

The problem here is unless he has sources (which he does not - or doesn't mention) inside the hawaiian government telling him that this was the reason then it is NOT fact... just speculation...

Now he might be right (only time will tell) but other explanations can be offered to why they differed the implementation of set prizecontrol... maybe they realized that if implemented imediatly and not give the oilcompagnies sufficient warning so they could implement changes to adjust to the new rules it would end up costing the compagnies a lot of money and thereby jobs and mayby even put them out of business (= even more jobs lost) so they decided to give the compagnies ample warning so the impact wouldn't be fatal...

I'm not saying that's the reason either but his theory of why they did it is NOT the only reasonable explanation so it doesn't prove that they somehow knew (or expected) that prizecontrols (allthough populist) are bad... so that part of the argument falls away (to be revisited another day if he gives proof that he was right about the motivation)...

then he sites that oilcompagnies have allready protested and threatned to leave hawaii... but off course the oilcompagnies are gonna complain... did you expect anything different?... that's not an argument for it being wrong or even hurtful... to any compagny change is ALLWAYS bad... the logic being... as is now makes us a lot off money (that is known) and if you change that I don't know if I can still make a lot of money (that is unknown) so I want to stay in the status quo cause here I know I'll make money...

But what if they get mad and leaves?
you think that even if they leave compagnies will leave any marked where they can make money? - no the answer is that even if the compagny leaves they will still sell oil to hawaii at the lower prizes (it's not all just money it's also markedshares)...
Let me give you an example from denmark... we have a cap on medical expences... you think that means that no pharmacutical will sell their products in denmark (I meen we are only 5 mill people so it's not the worlds biggest marked)?
No they ALL sell their products here but at a lower prize than countries whithout a prizecap and the same will be true for hawaii... so they will still have the same amount of oil as they had before but cheaper... as long as the compagnies still can make money they will sell... so NO shortage... and that takes care of that argument...

Then he sites the oilcrisis of '79 and blames it on the prizecontrol of oil back then... and since there have been no such crisis after reagan got rid of those controls (well they are waiting in line now aren't they?) :-D

Also I'm old enough to remember the crisis and the reason for it... and it is demonstraly wrong that it was because of prizecontrol...

Now I don't know about the US prizecontrols and what they were in '79 but I do know that NO country in europe had any prizecontrols on oil in the 70'ies and we also (as did the rest of the world) an oilcrisis... it was worldwide and not just in the US... so that can't be the reason for the crisis... and infact the real reason (if he knew what he was talking about) was that in '79 the consumption of oil worldwide reached the level of the capacity of the middle-east to pump up oil... and as the consumption kept rising (and still do till this day) but the new methods of pumping even more oil out of the ground hadn't invented yet no increase in oilproduction followed so consumption rose above production and created a shortage worldwide which resulted in the crisis (NOT prizecontrol)...

To prove my point... we are reaching the same kind of bottleneck in the consumption/production cycle which is why oilprizes has skyrockeded worldwide in resent years (without prizecontrol in the US - excluding hawaii)... and if we don't SOON find improved methods of produktion or alternate energysources we will have a new oil crisis (again NOT because of prizecontrol)... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he moves on to sweden and rentcontrol and sais that even though more people could afford homes and therefor more people bought a home... that would most centainly result in a shortage of homes available so eventualy the homes would have to cost more because shortage = more expencive... what he forgot was to look and see if that had been the case in sweden... and funny enough sweden didn't get a morgagecrisis or a shortage of house until reasently... but that was because of the worldwide economiccrisis and NOT because of yearlong rentcontrols... and that takes care of that argument... :-D

then he moves on to saying that not only does prizecontrols cause shortages (which he has yet to prove - see above) but also a decline in quality...

Then he mentions that if there is a shortage of housing the incentive of the landlord to maintain the houses disapears so the quality of housing goes down... and in that he is 100% right... in a shortage you get lower quality for the same money....

The only problem with that is as I have shown above prizecontrols do NOT create shortage so that 'strawmans' argument is pointless in this discusion on prizecontrol... since it doesn't create shortages it doesn't create lower quality... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

He then finishes by postulating that since prizecontrol causes lower quality (which it doesn't) waiting lists will skyrocket and because of the shortage (which it doesn't cause) it will eventually be astronimacaly more expencive than what you have now... but since I have allready shown that he failed to produce evidence that prizecontrols causes shortages causes lower quality there is NOT longer waitinglists and it is NOT more expencive which is what you see in ALL industrialized countries (except the US) which have universal healthcare payed for by taxes...

Again your argument turns out to be wrong...

But it all comes down to this... it doesn't matter how complex and finetuned your economic (or other) model is... if it contradicts reality the model must change NOT reality...

Your (and the author of the article) model predict that universal healthcare will be more expencive and produce lower quality...

The reality of allmost 100 years of univesal healthcare in the rest of the industrialized world have produced same to lower prizes and better healthcare...

And since your model contradicts reality there is only one option... your model is wrong and has to change to fit reality... reality doesn't have to change to fit your model... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 01:55:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Econ (none / 1)
That price controls cause shortages is a basic economic fact.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 03:25:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm not really :-) (none / 1)
damn it you select looong articles for me to respond too... so this is the last one for me... otherwise you could tie me up for hours responding to article after article... so after this respons my respons to ALL further atempts to find new aticles (that are just gonna have the same flaws as these two) are gonna be...

It doesn't matter what your fine models and theories are... if their predictions contradict reality they are the ones who must conform to reality and NOT reality that must conform to your theories (read previous respond)... <you insert this answer yourself after future presented articles basically saying the same thing> :-D

But for this article...
He starts by reciting the same rent argument that we saw in the former article... claiming that a shortage in apartments will lower set quality...
I'm in 100% agreement... shortage = lower quality product... but (as it AGAIN will become apparent) prize-control does NOT create shortages so it's ireelevant to this discusion...

Then he sites a poll among economists that showed 76.3% of them believe that 'A ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing available'... 16.6 percent agreed on the quality being lowered but not the quantity (which makes no sense) and only 6.5% believed that no shortage or qualityreduction will occur...

The problem with this is that it's NOT a democracy... there is a RIGHT and a WRONG answer to that question... it's NOT a matter of opinion... either it does create shortages (and subsequently lower quality) or it doesn't and the answer will be determined by REALITY (see my new standard answer to similar articles above)... so a vote or a poll on the subject is laughable as an argument...

Then he just simply states as fact... prizeceilings = shortages... well simply stating something is NOT an argument... it's a...... <wait for it>.... you've guessed it... statement :-D

Then he comes with a hypothetical scenario of wheatproduction... again NOT arguing just stating that a prizeceiling on wheat would create a lower wheat surply and an increase in demand which create a shortage... now that's just silly... explain to me why it would create a lower wheatsurply... the same amount of corn will still be planted and sowed and made to wheat so where does the lower surply come in? - mayby if the ceiling is set way lower than it costs to produce you have a point that than more farmers would go out of business and hence less wheat... but nobody is THAT unreasonable (unless during extreme shortages like during war or hyperinflation but then as he himself agrees it's just temporary ond after the war or inflation the cieling goes back up <more on that later>)... but if the ceiling is set so that the farmer can still make money just not as much then there will be NO lower surply and hence NO shortage even in his hypothetical example... that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he goes on to the '79 oilcrisis... well I've answer that allready so <read previous respons>...

Then he sites the shortages during WW2 and how prizecontrols were implementet and all the detremental effects they had... I could say a lot about the effects too but thats NOT relevant in this discusion since he aparantly forgot (even though he himself mentions it...) that the prizecontrols came AFTER the shortages and can therefor logically NOT be the cause... and infact the cause of the shortages was the war itself and not anything else the governement did incl. prizecontrol... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he mentions other examples during WW1 and WW2 where he mentions that the prizecontrols came AFTER the shortage and then quickly forgets again... so <allready answered>... again I have a lot to say about the detremental effects of the later prizecontrols and the real causes for them (but let me help you here... it was NOT the prizecontrols) but that's not relevant here since the prizecontrols obviously didn't cause the shortage which is your whole argument... so that takes care of that argument...

Then he starts talking about rationing (again comming after the shortage created by either war or hyperinflation) and how it's the only conclusion if you introduce prizecontrols (again AFTER the fact)... well rationing is only a tool AFTER the fact in case of EXTREME shortages such as during the great depression and the world wars etc... NOBODY has yet to be as stupid as to surgest rationing during surplus... and again everything he mentions comes AFTER the shortage so therefor can NOT be the cause of the shortage (incl prizecontrols and rationing)... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then after a loooooooong ranting about rationing... he goes on to labor issues and say that minimumwages MAY create uninployment... and he is right it may but unfortunatly for him reality shows that it doesn't...

Let me give you an example... in denmark we have had minimum wages since the 1930'ies and today the minimumwage in denmark is approx 17$/hour (that goes for ANY job imployed by ANYONE over 18)... since the early 90'ies till now we have had an unemplymentrate of between 1.2% and 2.3% and only since the economic crisis has it risen to 5.8% where it is now (NOT because of minimumwages but because of the crisis)... that's about half of the about 10% that the US has right now... so NO... minimumwage does NOT create unemployment it just create better wages... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he goes back to the rent argument but I have allready answered that so... :-D

He then revisits the WW1 and WW2 and inflation argument and why prizecontrol is bad to instigate AFTER the shortage for a looooooong time (again I could say a lot about this but it's STILL not relevant since it's AFTER the shortage)...

And then he finishes by esentially saying QED (Quest Est Desmerandum - it is hereby proven)... well my good sir it is NOT... I rest my case...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 05:02:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, really. (none / 1)
Price controls cause shortages.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 05:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 2)
just saying it doesn't make it so :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 05:16:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question (none / 1)
Would Denmark's unemployment rate increase if the minimum wage was doubled to thirty four dollars per hour?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 06:01:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
I'm not psychic so I don't know...

But since in the history of minimumwages a rise has NEVER increased unemployment I fail to see why it would now... so my guess would be a resouding NO :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 06:17:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great (none / 1)
Then why not raise the minimum wage to one hundred dollars per hour? Wouldn't that be great?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/14/2009 02:54:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
actually that's a good point... :-D

offcourse rasing the minimumwage arbitrarily to 100$ or 2.000.000$ or... is a BAD idea...

in any economy rasing it too high will cause inflation...

what I SHOULD have said was nowhere in the history of minimumwages has HAVING (not a rise in) a minimumwage caused unimployment...

so where should it be without causing damage to the economy...

well the idea behind a minimumwage is to make sure that even the lowest paying fulltime job can support a decent living for a person (so there's no need for a second or third job to survive)...

so the math would look like this...

(minimumwage)$ * (full time job)hours/week * 52 weeks / 12 month = (decent living)$

now what a decent living is can be discussed but it should make you able to afford a decent place to live and food for you and your family and healthcare and clothes as a minimum... :-D

in denmark we have a minimumwage of 17$/hour and a work week of 35.5hours/week so a decent living have been set at...

17$ * 35.5hours/week * 52 weeks / 12month = 2615.17$/month

for 2615.17$/month you can live a decent life in denmark so i think it's set fair... that doesn't meen that everybody gets that... most gets more (i'm a highschool teacher and I make 6000$/month)... but no matter what you do you will not starve or be homeless or die of preventable deceases on the minimumwage...

in the states you have a federal minimumwage of 7.25$/hour (but it can go as low as 2.65$/hour in kansas... but lets take the federalstandard... and the US have a (average since you don't have specific rules of how much a workweek should be) workweek of 42hours/week...

so your idea of a decent living is...

7.25$ * 42hours/week * 52weeks / 12 month = 1319.5$/month...

whether you can support yourself and your family in the US on that I don't know but it seems you can't since many seem to have to take both second and third jobs just to make ends meet... so mayby you should rase it a little... :-D

how much you should rase it is up to you but if people on minimumwages need 2 jobs to make ends meet mayby you should double it to 14.5$/hour or if they need 3 jobs to make ends meet you should tripple it to 21.75$/hour...

but again that's up to you :-D

but to answer your question... NO it should not be set arbitrarily but you should have a minimumwage and it should cover living expenses on just 1 full time job :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/14/2009 10:58:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Teacher, leave those kids alone (none / 1)
...i'm a highschool teacher...

But you obviously do not teach economics.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/16/2009 06:12:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
:-D (none / 0)
True :-D
I teach philosophy and psychology...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/17/2009 01:24:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What makes Twba tick (none / 1)
Imagine that your house caught fire and you had no insurance to cover the damage, so you quickly phoned an insurance company.

Wow, I didn't know about your house. I guess I've been kind of rough on you. If I'd known you'd been through such hardship, I might take back a few things I said about you. But still....calling the insurance company during the fire? What were you THINKING?

by OneHitKill on 11/04/2009 09:30:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
your view? (none / 0)
So what is your vote to the question that I posed in the article about gathering cases and filing class action suits thereby bypassing washington and the lobbyists and instigate change yourself? :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 09:41:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No further questions (none / 1)
I'm not exactly Atticus Finch, but I'm pretty sure a lawsuit, class action or otherwise, is a waste of time unless you can cite some kind of precedent or basis in law on which to build it....and said law is made in Washington, the very place you want to "bypass."

Even poor Twba, whose whole house burned down around him while he was on the phone with State Farm, would be left out in the cold wearing nothing but his bootstraps.

by OneHitKill on 11/04/2009 11:04:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
precedent... (none / 0)
There is precedent...
Now the lawers might know more or better precedent-cases but I remember a case back in the 90'ies (can't for the life of me remember the name of the case but you can check...) that dealt with insurance and cancer...

A guy had been turned down insurance for his cancer for preexisting condition and was dying... and he sued and won when it came out in the trial (because of a whistleblower from the insurance compagny incl internal memos) that they had a department whose only function was making up reasons for denying coverage plus an incentive program to the caseworkers that denied the most cases and therefor saved the compagny the most money... he won and got avarded over 100mill$ in damages... he still died (it was to late to do something for him) but his family got the money... but that's the only one I know of... but more could be out there...

But even if no precedents exists you could still make one by fx. taking the ridiculous cases like the case TYT took up not so long ago about the guy who got denied cancer treatment becase of a preexisting condition of acne in his teens that he hadn't disclosed in his papers and all the others like it and make the case that they (the insurance compagnies) de facto assisted in killing (or are in the process of killing for those who have a lifethreatening dissease but isn't dead yet) all those people by not covering them as they payed the compagn ies for in their premiums and then seek money for the medical treatment and emotional damage both for those still alive and for the familymembers of the dead...

And even if you only get 10mill dollars/person (not the 100mill+ dollars as in the case I mentioned before) as stated in my article you can still hurt them enough for them to change policy...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 11:40:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Anybody got a link? (none / 0)
but I remember a case back in the 90'ies (can't for the life of me remember the name of the case but you can check...)

I can't find the case you're talking about, but it sounds like the provider was guilty of some level of misrepresentation. That may have been their undoing, regardless of the plaintiff's medical condition.

by OneHitKill on 11/04/2009 08:43:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
true... (none / 0)
But even if there is no presedent... then here's the opportunity to set one...

I have sent a letter to ACLU asking whether such a lawsuit would be posible but I havn't heard back yet...

But I'll post their answer here and if it's possible I'll write TYT and surgest it...

And everybody else who thinks it's a good idea write them to and make it happen :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/05/2009 05:52:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
interesting... (none / 0)
But it's an interesting question you pose... I'm definetly NOT a lawer so maybe someone who can answer this question (ie lawer etc.) could post an answer to this post...

Is such a lawsuit as I have proposed in my article even possible?

Love thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 11:51:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
so TWBATX (none / 0)
The fire dept is socialism  at its best.  You traitor.

Imagine the fire dept refusing to show up to put a fire at your house based on an arbitrary decision from someone that is paid to reduce the number of fires the fire dept has to put out  based on the bottom line.

:)  

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/04/2009 04:21:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Health insurance is not like fire insurance. (none / 1)

Health insurance is not like fire insurance. Not having fire insurance can lead to loss of property. Not having health coverage can lead to disability or death. Fire insurance is a choice. Health insurance, in a moral world, is not.

I guess what you are suggesting is that people with preexisting conditions should just go away & die. Just kick the sick to the curb & forget about them, let them go bankrupt or die so insurance companies can make money. Is this ethical or moral? Just let people die.

Universal health insurance is the only sensible solution. It works well in Canada & is actually cheaper than the US system. True, it's not perfect but it provides the most health care to the most people, unlike the US system which covers only some people.. Health care which is mostly provided by the private sector, by the way.

Few people seem to understand what insurance is & how it works, so I'll provide a potted version. Essentially, insurance is a bet you make with a group of people but hope to lose.

Americans, in love with the idea of competition, think that if they just provide competition all will be well, but insurance is not like other businesses. It requires the other side of the Capitalist coin: cooperation. It's also just as vital to capitalism as competition (but that's another story.)

For insurance to work in a competitive environment it is crucial for those companies to be able to accurately predict the future. This is done using science, math, & pooling of large numbers of people.

I' ll provide a little history. In the beginning of the modern era, in 16th century Holland, merchants realized that at least one of their ships would not return every year. They decided to get together & make a small payment which would go to the merchant(s) that lost ships. By cooperating, each merchant lost a small amount of money in order for the ones who lost a ship could gain something if disaster struck rather than be wiped out.

By the 18th century, in Scotland it was realized that we could accurately predict death rates & life insurance as we know it was created. Death, fire, auto, theft, & some other things can be quite accurately predicted & therefore make for a profitable business. If you can accurately predict how much money you need to pool & how much you will have to pay out, you can make money.

However, you have a problem when prediction is impossible. Take floods, for example, at the current time they are impossible to predict accurately and that is why no for profit insurance companies will provide it. And what is strange to me, is that the US government does provide it for a small premium. You have socialized flood insurance that even the Republicans approve of. Perhaps, due to the fact that rich people benefit inordinately from it. They can build beach front mansions with little fear of loss. This, of course, is one of the moral hazards of insurance (But since it involves rich people's property it must be OK, unlike those pesky sick poor people who want health care.)

Back to health insurance. Health care needs, like floods, are impossible to predict under the current state of knowledge. Due to the continued improvements created by science & technology, health care is always changing. This means that it is impossible to make money providing it.

So why are health insurance companies in the US so profitable given this reality? Because they don't have to cover everyone. First, the sickest, riskiest persons are removed by Medicare, Medicaid, & the VA. Second, they can reject anyone they think might have a health problem. Third, if someone gets sick they can often get rid of them by sighting preexisting conditions or they agree to cover you but you may still have to make copayments.

This makes for a very profitable but ultimately dishonest business. Essentially it's a scam. Their business model is flawed & I predict without reform it is ultimately doomed to fail. Why? Because healthy people will continue to drop out if they perceive (rightly) that it provides no benefits to them. This is happening already.

Even with reform the business is already doomed due to the above mentioned unpredictability of costs.

When it comes to life, health, freedom from pain, humans have an insatiable demand for it. They will always demand more & more. We could spend every penny we make to save our lives. This is obvious even now, when so many people are going bankrupt in the US in order to pay for health care. Due to this insatiable demand the whole economy could end up being devoted to it, to the exclusion of everything else. This is not sustainable.

The only sensible solution, in my opinion, is universal health insurance paid for by taxes. Since everyone is covered it provides the largest possible risk pool. It is cheaper than the current system due to less administration & no need for profit. I know that Americans believe governments can't do anything but this is a myth. Governments can & do provide cheaper, fairer health care in the rest of the first world.

Of course, they do have to ration it, but this is inevitable. There just is not enough money to provide all the health care people demand. In the US, rationing is already being done: some people are not provided with health care. That works but is it ethical or moral?





by susanfrom on 11/04/2009 05:30:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice... (none / 0)
I couldn't have said it better myself :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 05:52:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Insurance (none / 1)
Apples are not like oranges.

I guess what you are suggesting is that people with preexisting conditions should just go away & die.

No. I am suggesting that insurance companies cannot insure against preexisting medical conditions any more than they can insure against a house that is already on fire. The Salvation Army can certainly donate food, clothing and shelter to homeowners who have lost everything in uninsured house fires, but we can't mandate that insurance companies pay the uninsured homeowners without severely distorting the insurance market.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/06/2009 03:03:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Health Care is a right not a privilage (none / 0)
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSan e  

its one sentence  Im sure you will grasp the concept  if you re read it over and over.

:)

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/06/2009 07:29:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 1)
Health care is not a right; health care is a service rendered in exchange for remuneration.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/07/2009 01:02:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Health care is a basic right (none / 0)
that is being denied  by for profit corporations.

:)

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/11/2009 01:50:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
denial for pre-existing conditions is good (none / 1)
insurance is about mitigating _risk_. _risk_ is about _uncertainty_. once you remove _risk_ and _uncertainty_ from the equation, as would be the case with a pre-existing condition, there is no more room for insurance in the picture. if you don't like that health-care costs a lot in the u.s., fix the underlying problem of why the costs are so high. claiming that doctors charge a lot because insurance companies force them to (and then presumably pocket a lion's share of the profit) is simply false. btw, as genetic screening technologies improve, it will become possible to tell which people are more prone to chronic, expensive illnesses long before they ever develop symptoms of such illnesses. it should be lawful (and even encouraged) for insurance companies to charge higher premiums for such people. that is what insurance means, and that is what happens with all other forms of insurance. stop treating health insurance like it was something else entirely, or else stop calling it insurance. if you want inexpensive treatment, demand that the government set up its own hospitals and run these institutions "at cost" and funded through general tax revenue. you may eventually find out that even in such cases, "at cost" treatment is simply too expensive, and then, as a society, you will have to make the choice about which human lives are worth preserving and which ones deserve to die.

by neo on 11/04/2009 12:44:49 PM EST

ahhh not true... (none / 0)
I personally live under a goverment run healthcare system and I can tell you that no cost is to expensive... case in point... in Denmark if you have a decease and you and your doctor find that the best treatment is so and so but it is experimental and not yet available in Denmark but it is being tested in Germany or Britain or... you get your travel + hospitalbill + treatment in set country paid for by the healthcare system even if there are other cheaper but not so effective treatments available in Denmark... and if you have a timesensitive decease like cancer you have the option to go to a private run hospital with no waitinglist and the healthcare system pays the bill...

Now people still die of cancer and the like but because we get preventive care it gets caught much earlier which is why a lower percentile in Denmark die of these deceases and there are fewer remissions... and we have a higher lifeexpectency...

And NOBODY gets denied treatment because it's to expencive...

Now you would be right about insurance if there were other options (like a public option or the cheaper universal healthcare)... but if private healthinsurance is the only option for healthcare for the large majority then that argument doesn't hold anymore... or if it does you just made a killer argument for a public option or universal healthcare for all those people (about 70% acording to the polls) that want to be fully covered no matter what :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 01:16:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WRONG (none / 0)
.

Insurance company death panels are NOT good

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/04/2009 05:55:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
What insurance compagny death panels???

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/04/2009 06:01:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Insurance companies (none / 0)
make arbitrary  life and death decisions all the time.

http://www.salon.com/news/f eature/2009/08/11/denial_of _care/

love whomever

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/04/2009 06:58:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Healthcareproviders and preexisting conditions | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: