I could live without healthcare reform! How about you?

I think we encounter a problem when we put our faith in markets with regard to health care.

For profit insurance companies really do deliver, but they deliver for shareholders and corporate execs. That is the nature of corporations. It's not evil, just capitalism.

Pharmaceutical companies really do deliver some amazing products, but they make money when we're ill. When we're well, they don't. They're not evil, just capitalists.

Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on lobbying efforts to ensure their continuing profitability. Your voice, and your needs may be drowned out by their political clout. It's not democracy, just capitalism.

It amazes me how many people defend so vehemently their right to make a profit, even when our costs are so incredibly high. Perhaps making money in the insurance and pharmaceutical business is incompatible with affordable, accessible health care for all. I think we get wedded to the idea that our system is American, and therefore better. In doing so, we lose our ability to look at things objectively.

Put it this way: there are some functions of government that we consider so very important that we don't trust the free market: national defense, police and fire, our justice system, for example.

I see national health care as belonging in this category, leaving plenty of room for competition among care providers- those who help us get well.

I think this sums up the situation very well!

I think we encounter a problem when we put our faith in markets with regard to health care.

For profit insurance companies really do deliver, but they deliver for shareholders and corporate execs. That is the nature of corporations. It's not evil, just capitalism.

Pharmaceutical companies really do deliver some amazing products, but they make money when we're ill. When we're well, they don't. They're not evil, just capitalists.

Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on lobbying efforts to ensure their continuing profitability. Your voice, and your needs may be drowned out by their political clout. It's not democracy, just capitalism.

It amazes me how many people defend so vehemently their right to make a profit, even when our costs are so incredibly high. Perhaps making money in the insurance and pharmaceutical business is incompatible with affordable, accessible health care for all. I think we get wedded to the idea that our system is American, and therefore better. In doing so, we lose our ability to look at things objectively.

Put it this way: there are some functions of government that we consider so very important that we don't trust the free market: national defense, police and fire, our justice system, for example.

I see national health care as belonging in this category, leaving plenty of room for competition among care providers- those who help us get well.

Exactly! That's what I've been thinking but couldn't put the words together. Nice job TP.

Z

It's sad to me that these kind of discussions always devolve into a racial or immigration matter. One could argue that the best thing for our economy and indeed our country is the immigrant labor that so readily comes here to work.

One thing people fail to account for is the taxes these illegal immigrants pay. The vast majority of them use fake social security numbers and pay taxes every year the same as you or I. The only difference is they cannot benefit from the workers comp insurance or the disability programs if they happen to get injured. What happens to all the money they pay into social security that they will never benefit from?

Yes they may use the emergency rooms and yes their children may go to school here but It seems to me that at the end of the day the benefits far exceed the costs. Can you imagine the cost of food without immigrant labor to plant it, weed it, water it, harvest it and in the end cook it for us at the restaurant of our choice? What about construction labor and factory workers. These are the types of jobs that most native born Americans are too lazy to do.

Oh and these evil immigrants only want to be here when they are young and healthy enough to earn a good living. Most of them will plan to retire in their home country where they can live on a good bit less money and actually afford healthcare.


-Eliot

One could argue that the best thing for our economy and indeed our country is the immigrant labor that so readily comes here to work.

You're right. As for taxes paid w/o benefits, the last number I read was an estimated $80 Billion. I'm pretty sure that was just SS, but not certain. Oddly, the IRS will issue a number as an alternative to a SS number for filing taxes. It just gets too weird. Make a big fuss about illegal immigrants. Then offer them jobs. And, oh so cordially, make it easier to pay taxes. It was one of the very few issues W understood well. Too bad he got no support.

For myself, and our modest needs, I won't knowingly hire illegals. I have absolutely no animus towards them, but feel those who came legally should have the first shot at a job, and I won't participate in the deceit I mentioned above.

Ben

It's sad to me that these kind of discussions always devolve into a racial or immigration matter. One could argue that the best thing for our economy and indeed our country is the immigrant labor that so readily comes here to work.

One thing people fail to account for is the taxes these illegal immigrants pay. The vast majority of them use fake social security numbers and pay taxes every year the same as you or I. The only difference is they cannot benefit from the workers comp insurance or the disability programs if they happen to get injured. What happens to all the money they pay into social security that they will never benefit from?

Yes they may use the emergency rooms and yes their children may go to school here but It seems to me that at the end of the day the benefits far exceed the costs. Can you imagine the cost of food without immigrant labor to plant it, weed it, water it, harvest it and in the end cook it for us at the restaurant of our choice? What about construction labor and factory workers. These are the types of jobs that most native born Americans are too lazy to do.

Oh and these evil immigrants only want to be here when they are young and healthy enough to earn a good living. Most of them will plan to retire in their home country where they can live on a good bit less money and actually afford healthcare.


-Eliot

Once again its not the immigrants that come here to work that are the problem. Go into an emergecy room and see if the Mexicans there are young hard working laborers. Stick to the issue of people who live in Mexico and only come across the border to access our free healthcare when they are sick, afterwards they go home to Mexico.

As your insurnace company how much it costs in California of Texas to have a baby. It's 30 grand here and 3,500 in South Dakota. The reason for the difference is the Mexicans that come across the border only for free healthcare.

I think we encounter a problem when we put our faith in markets with regard to health care.

For profit insurance companies really do deliver, but they deliver for shareholders and corporate execs. That is the nature of corporations. It's not evil, just capitalism.

Pharmaceutical companies really do deliver some amazing products, but they make money when we're ill. When we're well, they don't. They're not evil, just capitalists.

Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on lobbying efforts to ensure their continuing profitability. Your voice, and your needs may be drowned out by their political clout. It's not democracy, just capitalism.

It amazes me how many people defend so vehemently their right to make a profit, even when our costs are so incredibly high. Perhaps making money in the insurance and pharmaceutical business is incompatible with affordable, accessible health care for all. I think we get wedded to the idea that our system is American, and therefore better. In doing so, we lose our ability to look at things objectively.

Put it this way: there are some functions of government that we consider so very important that we don't trust the free market: national defense, police and fire, our justice system, for example.

I see national health care as belonging in this category, leaving plenty of room for competition among care providers- those who help us get well.

I think this sums up the situation very well!

Well now this is the root of everything for you guys, you want all the benfits of a country build on making a profit, yet you dont want any company that you buy its products from to make a profit so you can get a better deal.
Without a for profit society we would not have had much of he medical break throughs that we all enjoy. Many drugs where designed for something else and only during extensive and expensive clinical trial did the company accidently find that it worked really good at what the drug is used for now.
If a company couldnt make a profit why invest the money in creating new drugs, why invest the millions in clinical trial...stem cells is only going to happen becasue companies see a profit in it.

but you are right profits are evil!!! making money is evil!!! So no more new drugs, no more life saving machines nope why should a company risk huge money in research if they cant make money selling their inventions.

Yup wiith this way o doing things we would have no AIDS drugs no Hypertension drugs and so on so everyone would die in thier 50's and 60's and only those who really take care of their bodies would live to a ripe old age, just like it was 30 years ago.

Go into an emergecy room and see if the Mexicans there are young hard working laborers.

I've been to an ER once in the 12 years we've been here. And, yes, most of the people there were Hispanic, and, yes, they all looked like young farm laborers and there families. Not an old, fa.., errr, obese Hispanic person in the room. I guess I could have asked for everyone who was here illegally to raise their hand, but with all the crying and coughing and such I don't think it would have been appropriate  

you are right profits are evil!!!

Nonsense. You missed the entire point, Ocean. Take any nonessential item and profit all you like, so long as you do it honestly. Let the market work it's magic. But for essentials, like health care, if excessive profits inhibit access, that's a problem.

Using your pharma example, why is it cheaper to re-import drugs from Canada? Why is it that the same US made drug is available to people in Oz and NZ for much less than to people here? Then look at the practice of extending patents by making useless changes to the formula. Again, a back alley method of limiting competition.

It's not profits, per se, that are the problem, but the relentless "do anything it takes" to grow them. If your selling widgets, people can just say no. Not so if your life depends on it.

Ben

Ben

you are right profits are evil!!!

Nonsense. You missed the entire point, Ocean. Take any nonessential item and profit all you like, so long as you do it honestly. Let the market work it's magic. But for essentials, like health care, if excessive profits inhibit access, that's a problem.

Using your pharma example, why is it cheaper to re-import drugs from Canada? Why is it that the same US made drug is available to people in Oz and NZ for much less than to people here? Then look at the practice of extending patents by making useless changes to the formula. Again, a back alley method of limiting competition.

It's not profits, per se, that are the problem, but the relentless "do anything it takes" to grow them. If your selling widgets, people can just say no. Not so if your life depends on it.

Ben

Ben

Canada is buying the meds at a little above costs in bulk purchases. In the US we buy drugs in small batches.
Its very true that the US pays for all the pharma profits while Canada gets their drugs at near cost. I agree that this should be changed and Canada should be forced to pay a higher price for US created drugs, but then you hurt the people who buy lumber from Canada and the complex trade issues surface.

You and most people dont have to use medication. You can choose to take care of your body, eat right and exercise. It really comes down to personal choice. My mother is 75 years old and after my father died of a heart attack at 59 she completey changed her lifestyle and died. She takes mo medication of any kind, she walks three miles every day and keeps herself physically busy. she eats vvery little fat, very little white carbs and it shows in her excellent health.

Canada is buying the meds at a little above costs in bulk purchases. In the US we buy drugs in small batches.

Does this make any sense to you at all? And I will argue that medicare buys drugs in comparatively large batches since Canada has just a fraction of our population.

Rather than saying "Canada should pay more" (I don't now, maybe they should), shouldn't we be saying that export prices establish the maximum domestic price? In other words, Australia shouldn't be able to buy US drugs less expensively than medicare.

And I'm tired of your "people only need drugs because that eat badly" nonsense. No doubt, as a country, we really need to improve our diet and exercise habits, but that doesn't change what we are right at this moment and what we will be for some time to come. We didn't get fat overnight, and we won't get fit overnight either. I personally think we are over-prescribed, but that is entirely beside the point as well.

Ben

Well at least we agree that the emergecy rooms are full of people who are getting free healthcare and thats a part of the problem.

Here is my moring reading you might find this interesting.

Witnesses Pan Private Option 
 
By ALLISON BELL
Published 9/16/2009  Subscribe to Life & Health

Print This ArticleReturn To ArticleNormal TextLarge Text

Bureaucracy can be as much a problem at private health insurers as at public health programs, witnesses argued today at a subcommittee hearing organized by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But subcommittee members also heard from a witness who warned that well-intended efforts to rein in private health insurers could backfire, by creating artificial barriers and shortages that could limit consumers’ ability to get health care or health coverage.

One myth about reform of the health insurance industry “is that government-run health care is efficient and wasteful, compared to private insurance,” Kucinich, D-Ohio, chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said at the hearing, according to a written version of his opening statement posted on the committee website. “The truth is that government-run health care has lower prices and much lower administrative costs than private insurance.”

Government-run insurance negotiates harder bargains and has no multimillion-dollar executive salaries to pay or corporate jets to buy, Kucinich said.

The committee heard stories from a number of consumers with complaints about their health coverage.

Mark Gendernalik, a teacher from West Hills, Calif., said problems with health coverage slowed the process of diagnosis and treatment when his 3-month-old daughter developed a rare neurological problem.

William Ackley of Red Lodge, Mont., talked about the fight his father went through to get a bone marrow transplant to fight chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Even state insurance regulators ended up running into unresponsiveness when they tried to check up on the claim denial appeal, Ackley said.

Because a relatively few unlucky people account for most health care expenditures, “we buy health insurance to spread risks and protect our access to health care in case we get sick,” said Karen Pollitz, a research professor at a Georgetown University institute. “However, the same distribution creates a powerful financial incentive for insurers to avoid risk. In a competitive market, if an insurer can manage to avoid enrolling or paying claims for even a small share of the sickest patients, it can offer coverage at lower premiums and earn higher profits.”

Even if Congress requires insurers to sell coverage on a guaranteed-issue, modified community rating basis, with a ban on rescissions and preexisting condition exclusions, lawmakers must fight informal efforts to compete based on risk selection by requiring more data reporting to regulators, more disclosures to consumers, and better standardization of health insurance products, Pollitz said.

Recently, Pollitz said, when the House Oversight Committee asked the 50 state insurance departments about moves to rescind health insurance policies, “only 4 states could provide data on the number of rescissions that occurred. Only 10 states could provide the number of individual health insurance policies in force, and more than one-third of states could not supply a complete list of companies that sell health insurance within their jurisdiction.”

Michael Cannon, health policy studies director at the Cato Institute, Washington, a think tank that supports use of market forces to solve economic and social problems, said lawmakers must recognize that using price controls, underwriting restrictions and other artificial restrictions to try to help consumers could make the situation worse.

Researchers “have found considerable evidence that unregulated markets provide consumers with reliable long-term protection from the cost of illness,” Cannon said.

One team of researchers has reported that actual premiums paid for individual insurance are much less than proportional to risk, and risk levels have a small effect on obtaining coverage, Cannon said.

The increase in premiums as a result of risk represents only about 15% of the increase in risk, Cannon said.

Health insurer efforts to rescind policies as a result of alleged defects in applications have occurred in California, but insurers and their lawyers themselves know that the rescission cases are difficult to take to a jury, Cannon said.

If Congress tries to make insurers hold prices down, the price controls would “punish insurers who provide quality coverage to the sick,” Cannon said. “Price controls will eliminate the plans that sick people find most attractive.”

If Congress tried to help health insurers hold down underwriting costs and spread risk by requiring individuals to own coverage, costs would go up, Cannon predicted.

In addition, if the government set up a government-run plan, patients might find that getting the government plan to live up to its benefits commitments may be far more difficult than getting private plans to pay benefits, because the government “wields the sole, legal, and unilateral power to breach its commitments without compensating those it harms,” Cannon said.

Well at least we agree that the emergecy rooms are full of people who are getting free healthcare and thats a part of the problem.

Well no.

I only said they were Hispanic and generally young families.

Neither of us know who or how many were insured.

Neither of know if they were just there for the day illegally, there because they were illegal laborers, or there just as you or I would rightfully be.

I don't doubt that illegal immigrants, whether the field laborers you are willing to excuse, or those who only come for a day, have some impact on heath care. There just isn't any proof that it is significant beyond border states, if even then.

Ben

As your insurnace company how much it costs in California of Texas to have a baby. It's 30 grand here and 3,500 in South Dakota. The reason for the difference is the Mexicans that come across the border only for free healthcare.

The following is only my opinion, I always hold on to the idea that I might be wrong.

Ocean,

You can't keep throwing out statements like that and expect people to take anything you say seriously. 

if i am employed and my family has good coverage and does not have to go to a county hospital for services i am OK with no reforms. However, should i become unemployed and lack insurance for good health care I would be all for reform because i will then be among the "have nots" and need it for myself and family. It all comes down to who has what and who doesnt have good care. I think its good to have competition among health care providers. i have been abroad and have seen the quality of care when there is no competition among providers and it can get very bad. Money is a driving factor and service does improve with competition. I think by allowing the government in to the health care trade things would potentially change for the worse. I know a lot of people have this opinion that care abroad in socialist health care systems are good, everyone has coverage etc... but in europe where i have been i have seen yes people do all have coverage but service is terrible. every provider is essentialy a government employee. i think that the quickest way to give everyone coverage is to go to a socialist system. at the same time i think that by doing this and removing the element of competition among providers is a sure way to rid the US of decent health services we now take for granted.

can anyone think of one business that has been taken over by the government which has been really successful? i personally cannot think of one and as long as i have decent health insurance through employment i dont want any reform. Ask me in 6 mos and if i am unemployed without health benefits for my family I will say YES to reform!

can anyone think of one business that has been taken over by the government which has been really successful?

In Washington we had a public utility that provided electric and water services. Hands down prices and services were better than anything I've seen from PG&E. I understand Sacramento's SMUD is also prefered. We built a fairly large outbuilding not long ago. I hired the biggest contractor in OR, for that type of building, to do the job. While the local county planners were dealing with a huge boom, they *still* did everything within their committed time frame. The contractor made unnecessary errors, delayed plans and engineering for months, errantly double billed items, etc, etc...

That said, I would still prefer to see as much of health care as possible remain private. I think private competition and innovation could add positively to the mix. That's also why I prefer the idea of insurance mandates to outright socialization. I also like the idea of a public option. It would serve as competition where none exists. If government is so crappy at providing services competing with it shouldn't be a problem.

Ben