Is it just me? health insurance related
- 06-18-2009, 01:51 PM
I as well don't think that the US healthcare is without need of changes, but universal health care isn't either the best choice, or realistically affordable by us as a country. When the cost will come to over $10,000 per uninsured person per year, we need to take a far far far closer look at the math as the private industry will cover a family of 4 for less than that.
- 06-18-2009, 01:53 PM
You constantly preach from high on your rock, and most honestly find it condescending, and annoying. Now please, retort my post with words that only exceed 12 characters long to try and crucify me to my proverbial cross.The Historic PES Legend
06-18-2009, 01:54 PM
I completely agree. Something that is feasible in the scope of 30 million may not be on the scope of 300 million. I was never arguing that Universal is superior to private-sector, Easy. We were comparing relative care for the citizens of each country, and you said something I felt was false. So, in the context of care for Canadian Citizens, I defended the system. In no way I am saying the U.S., should adopt this type of system, or that it is viable for every nation.I as well don't think that the US healthcare is without need of changes, but universal health care isn't either the best choice, or realistically affordable by us as a country. When the cost will come to over $10,000 per uninsured person per year, we need to take a far far far closer look at the math as the private industry will cover a family of 4 for less than that.
06-18-2009, 02:00 PM
Whats interesting in some ways is that the socialistic system in canada can enjoy a useful life a good bit longer than in most other countries due to canadas "youth" as a country and significant amount of natural resources and space to expand. Socialistic policies work decently at any point where you can continue to pull more natural resources and continue population growth whether by births or by immigration. Its when you reach germany's point of declining population and relatively maximized out resources and space that the socialistic policies show the worst of their weaknesses. If the population isn't growing then you have negative GDP growth yet with longer lifespans you have higher cost of maintaining your non-working population both in terms of food + healthcare. Not a good combo.
06-18-2009, 02:07 PM
06-23-2009, 10:13 AM
They also rate equality of health care higher or better than health care which is more variable, roughly meaning equally distributed ****ty health care rates 'better' in their study's methods than unevenly distributed but universally higher quality care. They also rate life span without correcting for nonhealthcare related issues that affect life span, which is rather convenient if you're the nation with a higher death toll due to car accidents, military deaths, and other nonhealthcare related deaths. Infant mortality is another bull**** figure because we bring more problematic pregnancies to term in the US than in other countries. We have higher infant mortality because more high risk kids are born here that would die in the womb or get aborted in other countries.
So, relative opinions on the health care systems aside, the WHO report is a load of steaming bull**** that literally begs its own conclusions in various areas and deliberately uses slanted data. Using it for birdcage liner would do it too much respect. Quoting it as some kind of authority means you either haven't read it or are deliberately or through ignorance overlooking massive errors and biases that present.
06-23-2009, 10:22 AM
You are aware that just under half the health care costs raised and settled in the US anually are paid by the government through our own single payer systems Medicare and Medicaid, correct? You are aware that the majority of the rest of the system is a third party payment system, mostly subsidized by employers via the government mandated HMO Act, which itself was a reaction to the situation that arose after WWII when the government froze wages and forced employers to offer other 'benefits' to compete for employees, and then the government made those benefits tax deductable for companies but not individuals essentially forcing the whole country into employer subsidized third party payment or government care, correct? You are aware that it is the government at the state and federal levels which stops proper risk tiering and mandates coverage for uninsurable conditions, as well as de facto outlaws a la carte coverage, correct? Yoiu are aware that it is the AMA via government mandate which essentially controls the supply of doctors in the US, correct?
If so, please explain to me what kind of massively twisted and distorted view of the world one must have in order to view the US system as a 'private sector' system.
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
You know, I could almost (really not quite, but much closer) be behind a universal catastrophic only coverage plan. It would be a lot cheaper at least than full sniffles/headaches/prescription coverage.
damn bush for medicare part D
06-23-2009, 10:41 AM
In terms of expenditures, the U.S., expenditure for its system is equal to the amount, or exceeds the amount, that Canada spends as a percentage of GPD, Easy.Now, what do these statements mean? Two things: a) I am fully aware of the exorbitant involvement of the U.S., Government in Health Care provision, the substantially greater % of GDP the U.S., government spends on health care provision compared to Canada, and the per-capita tax cost; and b) I was making a statement about what both Easy and Adams would ideally like the system to be [private sector] - i.e., they were both criticizing the current [and predominantly] single payer system in favor of a completely privatized system. (This means they were "endorsing" it.) To that end, I understood and, to a certain degree, agreed with their motivation. Easy and Adams were pointing out the inadequacies in the current U.S., system, and promoting an all for-profit method; I saw their motivation.At any rate, I can understand why you both endorse a private-sector system, and, as Easy said, it stems from differences between the countries themselves. No point in continuing to argue what we both "feel" is right.
You may want to fully consider statements before acting pompous.
06-23-2009, 11:23 AM
06-23-2009, 11:26 AM
another option would be to "criminalize" risky behaviors IF you are accepting the safety net. Ever read the book Holy Fire by bruce sterling?
06-23-2009, 11:26 AM
06-23-2009, 11:31 AM
On the issue as a whole: I agree with your hypothetical plan above; I have no qualms with it whatsoever. My original criticism stemmed from the warped operation of the U.S's current system, and my defense of the Canadian system was based on the two as-of-now.
My only concerns with a la carte coverage would be transparency; however, "transparency" is usually government-mandated, and this may have unintended consequences on the market.
06-23-2009, 11:37 AM
Don't like the idea of criminalizing the behaviors. At root that means you accept the government's role in the area as legitimate, not one of necessary but minimal evil. That's one of the reasons why we're in our current state anyway. We ceded power over health care to the government. Now because 'we' bear the burden of health care 'we' have to have our options restricted and our lives intruded upon.
06-23-2009, 11:42 AM
its science fiction, but the relationship is that people are able to have life extending medical procedures but how many / how often is dictated partially by you NOT doing risky behaviors.
I'm not sure about criminalizing, but my problem with any universal coverage of any sort is that I dislike paying a premium for someone who (for instance) smokes cigarettes, eats wrong, etc.
06-23-2009, 11:43 AM
06-23-2009, 11:50 AM
06-23-2009, 11:58 AM
06-23-2009, 12:07 PM
Encyclopedia Brittanica says insurance is
#1 is why a single system for no $ for all people doesn't make financial sense. Its why there are different insurance rates in west virginia vs florida vs california. Different people fall into different risk categories, and pay a different premium for those. Whether based on age, race, blood test results etc. Its one of the built in disincentives to smoke or do other risky behaviors like staying obese - you'll save money on your insurance as well as save money on not spending on that habit. If you lose the financial disincentive, you are no more likely to quit smoking or binge eating, if anything less likely.a system under which the insurer, for a consideration usually agreed upon in advance, promises to reimburse the insured or to render services to the insured in the event that certain accidental occurrences result in losses during a given period. It thus is a method of coping with risk. Its primary function is to substitute certainty for uncertainty as regards the economic cost of loss-producing events.
Insurance relies heavily on the “law of large numbers.” In large homogeneous populations it is possible to estimate the normal frequency of common events such as deaths and accidents. Losses can be predicted with reasonable accuracy, and this accuracy increases as the size of the group expands. From a theoretical standpoint, it is possible to eliminate all pure risk if an infinitely large group is selected.
From the standpoint of the insurer, an insurable risk must meet the following requirements:
1. The objects to be insured must be numerous enough and homogeneous enough to allow a reasonably close calculation of the probable frequency and severity of losses.
2. The insured objects must not be subject to simultaneous destruction. For example, if all the buildings insured by one insurer are in an area subject to flood, and a flood occurs, the loss to the insurance underwriter may be catastrophic.
3. The possible loss must be accidental in nature, and beyond the control of the insured. If the insured could cause the loss, the element of randomness and predictability would be destroyed.
4. There must be some way to determine whether a loss has occurred and how great that loss is. This is why insurance contracts specify very definitely what events must take place, what constitutes loss, and how it is to be measured.
#3 is the big kicker there tho. For particularly smoking and inappropriate eating, as well as other activities, "beyond the control of the insured" is quite relevant. Does anyone doubt at this point that smoking causes health damage? Then insurance covering health issues stemming from smoking is ridiculous, particularly if its not insurance whereby the smoker is paying out of his own pocket a premium for coverage based on his risk group, as he is knowingly doing something that harms his health.
06-23-2009, 12:44 PM
On the other hand, specific reasons aside, if being homosexual as a class means you're at high risk for this or that, you should pay more for insurance. Likewise for someone like myself, my family history of heart disease means I should pay more than other people. Proper pricing means proper risk tiering, which means insurance companies must be allowed to employ any effective criteria for distinguishing risk levels between individuals. Now that means different prices for gays, people with bad family histories, people of different races, etc. If you find that distasteful fine, but understand by eliminating the ability to use effective criteria you're just forcing people who would normally pay less to pay more, and those who would otherwise need to pay more get to pass that cost on to others.
06-23-2009, 12:49 PM
06-23-2009, 12:56 PM
My thought of the "criminalization" part was more on the order of fines or something along those lines, perhaps even higher taxation on products like tobacco, alcohol, meals over 800 calories, anal lube, etc rather than so much actual jail time, with the point being recouping the additional cost that the groups who use those products cost the overall pool if we were to get stuck with effectively a single risk tier. Again, much less an issue with catastrophic only coverage as the odds of catastrophic events although still higher for some groups are relatively low odds to begin with.
06-23-2009, 01:07 PM
On the note of increasing taxes, I agree with it morally but disagree in principle. People should regulate their own behavior, and not be penalized for harming themselves. This type of parasitic behavior can then be normalized by the private insurers, by providing higher premiums for people who display this type of behavior.
As I say, if a la carte is your preference, so be it; however, the risk-tiering cannot and should not occur at the "safety net" level, and be restricted to the for-profit sector.
06-23-2009, 01:46 PM
Where do you think all the risky people will go and 'demand' their 'right' to health care? That's another apsect of US context you may be missing, the welfare rights movement that happened in the sixties and seventies. You see, 'assistance' was usually there in some form or another, but frowned upon. Women on 'assistance' used to have to agree to things like having no make callers. Welfare offices used to make an effort to contact relatives and get them to contribute to a claimant rather than stick them on the public dole. Then the welfare rights movement began and encouraged people not to look on public assistance as shameful, but a right one should be glad to claim. They taught people how to overwelm welfare offices so as to avoid scrutiny and get their case through easily. They changed the very fabric of the US culture to where we now have a permanent underclass who not only received near permanent assistance from the government, but thinks it's their right to receive that assistance and that it's a good thing.
I don't know if you've had a similar movement in Canada, but this one swept the US a while back and changed a lot of perceptions vis a vi public assistance.
06-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By BMW in forum SupplementsReplies: 23Last Post: 10-16-2007, 10:28 PM
- By Blownkbgt in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 06-11-2007, 12:33 PM
- By mauibuilt in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 07-02-2003, 10:00 PM