A DIFFERING VIEW: Rocky off base on health care proposal

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 10, 2008 at 3:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Due to the skyrocketing costs, the Boston Globe reports, the government will have to "cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for patients, and possibly increase how much patients have to pay." Massachusetts is also asking the federal government to make up the shortfall of "hundreds of millions of dollars."

Monopolies are always hostile to the consumer; and mandatory monopolies are even worse. But it doesn't end there, it gets worse. When you separate the consumption function from the payer function, the consumer will only get what the payer is willing to pay for. Such a system is doomed to fail, provide inferior service and will ultimately resort to rationing in order to control costs and protect the financial interests of the payer. The end result is that the consumer and payer are adversaries; the payer holds the more powerful hand and the consumer will ultimately get less. And in case its not yet clear--the consumer is the patient.

The only system that will work over time is one that permits the consumer (patient) to also function as the payer and permit him to shop the healthcare system with his own money and make choices in his own best interest. There are numerous combinations of circumstances and conditions that will allow this to happen; the most important being the recognition of the power and efficiency of choice, competition and rational behavior that serves one's own best interest. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a good place to start looking for such a solution; you won't find any help at the post office.

Posted by socrates on April 10, 2008 at 4:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The free market works with widgets - not with health care. Any system in which your choice is pay or die is inherently not a free market.

Posted by VVVV on April 10, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pay or choose to take that risk is the very definition of a free market. Freedom should include the right to choose to not have health care. For any health care procedure the doctor has to get your approval before he starts. You have the right to refuse to be treated, therefore you should also have the right to refuse to pay for insurance that you won't use. The tragedy is when people who choose to not pay for insurance can't pay for the procedure they suddenly want. That is the risk they were banking on avoiding, so to be a free market, the hospital should be allowed to recover all costs through a lifetime of federally controlled endentured servitude, if necessary. It would be almost equivalent to minimum security prison with medical benefits and mandatory work assignments. When a hospital saves an uninsured person's life, that person owes their life to that hospital. A force of low paid, but insured, workers that must work off their debt to the hospital would reduce medical costs, ensure all people are guaranteed health care, and provide a great incentive for people to opt for insurance in the first place. Since the uninsured are the cause of the problem, shouldn't they bear the brunt of the consequences?

Posted by Earl on April 10, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

come on ditter you and your blue ribbon pannel can show those east coast liberals in mass, home of kennedy and kerry, that you can ruin health care better than they can. wow now we can all help pay for socialized health care in mass as it is proven to be a failure.
I am sitting here wondering how our local socialist progressive liberals are going to spin this one to call it a lie. lets not forget this is a known failure in far extreme progressive liberal left country.
it is a shame they didnt go talk to castro or hugo before they started, you know they have the best health care in the world according to the progressives.

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 10, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This from the American Shareholder Association:

"Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) is next in line to be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He's probably also public enemy number one to health savings accounts (HSAs). This week, he's tucking an earmark into a tax bill which would cripple and undermine HSAs.

First, some background: HSA funds can generally only be used for qualified medical expenses. Taking money out for non-medical reasons generally results in taxes owed on the withdrawal, plus a 10% penalty. Taxpayers assert that the withdrawal was for medical expenses (or not) on their tax return, under penalty of perjury. Like any other deduction, liars and cheats are caught using the IRS's audit process.

But that's not good enough for Stark. He wants to have HSA holders get independent verification that the withdrawals were qualified. Not coincidentally, there is only one company (Evolution Benefits) that has the technology to do this, and it's the one lobbying for this provision.

This provision is a win for both Evolution Benefits (who gets to corner the market on third-party substantiation, for which they have a patent), and Pete Stark (since he knows this will scare off banks, businesses, and consumers from offering HSAs). This is a mortal threat to the investor class."
------
Worse than that...this can be dangerous for your health. Would the sick patient like to depend on Pete Stark, the folks who run our inefficient post office, the people who maintain our crumbling bridges and highways, the folks who fail to educate our kids and the same folks who manage our broken Social Security and Medicare for his health care? That would produce a dial-tone EKG in a heartbeat--the sick patient's very last heartbeat.

Posted by Froward69 on April 10, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

spot on Earl,
we should model our health care on what WORKS in other countries... Cuba, France, Great Brittan, Norway, Chile, Canada, Germany.
Gosh typing that out really made me realize that under fascist republican rule The United States has become not just a laughingstock, but a third rate country.

Posted by Art on April 10, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Massachusetts plan is a dismal failure and has only served to exacerbate the problems in that state. For Colorado to follow their lead is the height of stupidity. Oregon is suffering similar problems with their mandated system as well. We all know that if the insurance companies see that there is a requirement, a law, that all people must purchase health insurance it is a free ticket to raising everyone's premiums and co pays. This is only sensible for the insurance companies. Allow the citizens of Colorado to purchase health insurance from whatever state they want and you will see the rates come down. Of course the legislature already killed this bill since it would "cause harm to the insurance companies doing business in Colorado". Why would it cause harm to Colorado based companies? Simply because they would have to lower their rates in order to compete with companies in other states. The legislature is thus telling the citizens of Colorado that they do not want us to have choice and the certainly do not want to allow us to be able to find affordable health insurance.

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 10, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...pay or die is inherently not a free market."

That is precisely the definition of a free market. Healthcare is not a right, you simply have to make good choices for yourself and pursue your own happiness. You'll get help if you really need it (I believe in charity), but don't first look to me or my kids to pick up your tab. We believe in free markets, choice and the pursuit of happiness; you believe in being a welfare junkie. That's your problem.

Posted by KelcyCo on April 10, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets eliminate health insurance as we know it today and make it only catastrophic insurance. Everyone pays their own way for anything under 25 thousand dollars per year, what you might pay for a small car these days. It will eliminate the waste in dollars required to maintain all these insurance companies with their individualistic forms and tracking numbers, as well as reduce the number of people in all those medical facilities and offices that are paid to submit all the bills to the insurance companies. Patients would better appreciate the care they get because they actually pay for it. They are more likely to drop medical practioners that give them poor service. The cost of insurance should go down per individual and then maybe we can get everyone covered for catastrophic events.

Posted by Gandalf on April 10, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

that's all well and good SASQUATCH if you actually have enough money to "shop around", however, I think your living in a fantasy world if you think that we are all able to make this kind of choice. Try giving your "smoke and mirrors" spiel to the millions who have chosen to have the best insurance they can afford in today's society and are still getting the shaft from the insurance company that is supposed to be providing them the service(s) they paid for. I'm hardly advocating 100% socialized medicine, but to actually think that this situation can be fixed by simply choosing better insurance is a delusional pipe dream.

Posted by Earl on April 10, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow with proof that it is failing in mass every socialist still thinks they can fix it to make it work. it doesnt work anywhere its tried.
backward you have know idea of what a top rate country this is. please go visit a few thrid world contries and then come back and say that with a straight face. how about you start with venezuela as alot of hollywood and dems find them a wonderful place and have free health care. go check it out first hand and let us know what you think when you get back.

Posted by Froward69 on April 10, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have Earl, and I can say with a smile the Dental work I received in Juarez Mexico was first rate. at a THIRD of the cost (including travel) than that I would have received Here. When my now ex dentist called me shortly after my return. i sent him a copy of my bill. He exclaimed that was impossible! however it is true. same work same drugs same result. 1/3 the cost.

Posted by Froward69 on April 10, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now how to gain a handle on Health Insurance costs... Mandatory health insurance like Mass. is not the way, I For one would like to see something like UNIVERSAL Health Care for all. minus insurance comps. they have a cash cow in mandatory car insurance already.

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 10, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The government now pays for 47% of America's healthcare insurance and its price is still heading north. We buy 100% of our own auto insurance, we buy 100% of our own home insurance, we buy 100% of our own property and asset insurance--but we expect someone else to pay 100% of our healthcare?

As long as we are not held financially accountable for our own insurance, then we are spending someone else's money. So that makes it his problem. This opens the door to rationing because you always get a run on something of value that's free. Suprise, suprise--healthcare prices are getting pushed north because "he's" paying for it and rationing is right around the corner.

Healthcare is not a right nor is it an entitlement. I believe in charity but I don't believe in supporting welfare junkies who won't make the decision to take care of himself. There are an estimated 10 million folks with annual incomes over $75,000 who don't have healthcare. That's their coice and I won't pick up their tab.

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 10, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have Earl, and I can say with a smile the Dental work I received in Juarez Mexico was first rate. at a THIRD of the cost (including travel) than that I would have received Here. When my now ex dentist called me shortly after my return. i sent him a copy of my bill. He exclaimed that was impossible! however it is true. same work same drugs same result. 1/3 the cost."

Outstanding and congrats, you get today's Free-Market Capitalist award. You helped to keep everyone's price down because you outsourced your demand and shopped the system like any well-managed and successful multinational company. You shopped the healthcare system without regard for borders, saved money and got what you needed. If its good for GM or Microsoft or Intel or Caterpillar or Cisco, then its also good enough for F69. The same process also works in Littleton but on a much smaller scale.

Now be honest, did the dentist use a scorpion for anesthesia?

Posted by Froward69 on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

out sourcing does not work for emergency room visits nor ongoing care. paying through the nose for convience is currently the only option. get real SASQUATCH! you just proved how third rate our current health care system really is.

Posted by jjez on April 10, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I've said before, it's corporate greed that has increased our costs! Since the CEO & his cronies have to make so many millions a year, that cost gets passed on to the consumer. The local dentist has high overhead (you think novacaine is cheap? or the drills?--for the same reason everything else is!) so of course it's impossible to make a profit (and a good one at that) by charging what the Mexican dentist did. Get a clue people!

Posted by mrfxx on April 10, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Froward69 - how did you miss Japan? I find it interesting that big business in this country isn't clamoring for some form of universal health care or single payer system, since they are the first to whine that they can't be competitive because of benefits (like health care and under- or unfunded defined pension plans that they dump on the US taxpayers at the first opportunity) when the countries they are competing with typically do have some form of universal health care or single payer system. WAIT - those countries (which frequently have lower infant mortality rates and higher longevity) also have a lower cost of living, so they will still offshore the work - but the businesses will have one less excuse to do so.

Posted by raysmom on April 10, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One thing I haven't seen addressed on this thread is that insurances were never meant to pay for EVERYTHING. Insurances of all kinds should be supplements, and used for catastrophic events. Auto insurance has a deductible in most cases- get a car you can the upkeep on. Homeowners insurance is the same. But nobody budgets anymore- they have families and houses and cars and lifestyles that they can't afford!

When I couldn't afford a car, I used public transportation. When I couldn't afford a house, I rented. I waited until I was 30 to have my only child, when we could afford it. Now we own a small business, and we pay for our insurance and insurance for our employees, because we choose to. But we can't afford the co-pay system premiums, so we have opted for a Health Savings Account Plan.

This is before tax dollars put into an account held for that purpose, along with a well-care and higher deductible catastrophic plan. The Bush administration has been pushing this, and the rates are going down, and it's AWESOME! We save on tax dollars, and I do have some health problems, so I choose and manage my own health care, and I have discovered that the insurance money that was spent on wasted tests and procedures insisted on by the "professionals" was like a pyramid scheme! This system keeps them honest, reduces costs, and puts the power into the hands of the insured. And yes, I am glad we can afford it, but there are programs in place already for those who really need help- I am happy to have my taxes help those in real need- they aren't the big problem.

The big problem is that so many otherwise intelligent people want the gov't (my tax $$'s) to take care of them when they are perfectly capable of making their own decisions and budgeting like we do! I don't think I'm better than anyone else- I think most people are capable of being responsible- they just don't want to be- it's easier to sit at the trough and have the politicians and big businesses who want power spoon feed them! And the politicians depend on this attitude to KEEP them in power- the trough is BIG BUSINESS and the BIGGER the BETTER.

I'll live my own life and make my own decisions, thank you, and I trust most everyone else to do the same- I know they can.