90% of all health care cost in US due to preventable illnesses

[Dr.Who]

if it were possible chemically you would have to go stealth and put it in the water.

but thats a creepy thought.

That has not stopped the gov from putting fluoride in the water for exactly that rational.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, end the policies of forced collectivism. You only care how much it costs because you're on the hook for your neighbors HC costs. My recommendation: Freedom. Cut the velvet chains of slavery that bind his HC to your wallet and things are how they should be, we'd be free to live as we wish - consequences and all - without the coercive force of government attempting to regulate us into "healthy" lifestyles.

The fact that so many people are actually interested in how to get people to improve their health scares me, it's none of our damn business, so any "ideas" would only fuel the paternalistic statism that's already a nightmare infernal machine.

People with airbags drive mroe recklessly than people without.

People who paid for their own insurance and healthcare would be more careful with their life choices. People who get a free ride think that if someone else is taking care of it then they can be reckless with thei health. A false sense of invincibility.

Of course the dept of ag and other gov departments are heavily influenced by large corporations. The widely distributed food pyramid recommends unhealthy habits in the name of good health. yes I oppose corporatism as much as the left. I just see the solution as one that does not restrict the freedom of citizens but instead restricts the actions of officials who take an oath to follow the constitution but don't.

you probably already knew that healthcare started getting geometrically more expensive after health insurance became one of the few ways companies had left to attract talent after government wage setting after WWII. and exponentially more expensive when Medicare came to pass.

 

[PLC1]

Unless it was the statism that was causing people to be reckless and reducing statism would cause people to improve their health.

I think you're on to something here. Not only does "statism", in this case, someone else paying the bills, encourage people to be more reckless, but it discourages any attempt to economize. So, if the patient, rather than the insurance company or the government, had to pay, then there would be an incentive to take care of your body and economize on health care.

On the other hand, just allowing people who can't afford to go to the doctor or have no money for insulin or an asthma inhaler to just take their lumps is pretty cold, too.

What might work best would be an insurance that really is insurance, and not a pre paid medical care package. Let the individual pay normal costs, but provide a safety net for people who have life altering expenses due to illness or accident.

 

[dogtowner]

I think you're on to something here. Not only does "statism", in this case, someone else paying the bills, encourage people to be more reckless, but it discourages any attempt to economize. So, if the patient, rather than the insurance company or the government, had to pay, then there would be an incentive to take care of your body and economize on health care.

On the other hand, just allowing people who can't afford to go to the doctor or have no money for insulin or an asthma inhaler to just take their lumps is pretty cold, too.

What might work best would be an insurance that really is insurance, and not a pre paid medical care package. Let the individual pay normal costs, but provide a safety net for people who have life altering expenses due to illness or accident.

thats what we already have.

but perhaps you mean insurance pools of a different and far more broad based nature ?

best example of that is Medicare which not just fails to moderate the actual costs of healthcare but drives them up.

the only way to get people interested in their health is to make them bear the cost. maybe you realize its smarter to get that $? flu shot as opposed to risking what flu CAN do to you. and if you are seeing the doc because you NEED to, that will mean far less visits and a requirement for them to address their fees to continue to eat. aka competition. they do not compete much today outside the very bet who are the very best and compete for the well heeled who can pay their own way.

competition was removed from healthcare with the predictable result.

 

[PLC1]

thats what we already have.

but perhaps you mean insurance pools of a different and far more broad based nature ?

best example of that is Medicare which not just fails to moderate the actual costs of healthcare but drives them up.

the only way to get people interested in their health is to make them bear the cost. maybe you realize its smarter to get that $? flu shot as opposed to risking what flu CAN do to you. and if you are seeing the doc because you NEED to, that will mean far less visits and a requirement for them to address their fees to continue to eat. aka competition. they do not compete much today outside the very bet who are the very best and compete for the well heeled who can pay their own way.

competition was removed from healthcare with the predictable result.

Partly correct. Competition does need to be replaced, no question about that.
As for Medicare, it pays 80% of medical bills regardless of what they are. Seniors, therefore, generally purchase a "supplement" to pay the other 20% so as not to get stuck with 20% of a bill that could easily total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The result is that Medicare recipients don't even consider the costs of one provider vs. another, as someone else is paying the bills.

A much better system would be Medicare paying on a sliding scale from 0% to 100% of the costs depending on what those costs are. That way, the patient would not need a supplement, would be paying out of pocket and therefore have an incentive to shop around (competition), but wouldn't have to sell the house to pay medical bills when a real disaster struck.

It would also be much better if everyone were eligible for Medicare, not just seniors.

but, none of that will happen, as it would be the end of medical insurance, and the companies selling policies would see to it that such a system will never see the light of day.

 

[GenSeneca]

On the other hand, just allowing people who can't afford to go to the doctor or have no money for insulin or an asthma inhaler to just take their lumps is pretty cold, too.

You're saying that it would be "cold" if they didn't have a guaranteed "right" to the products of another individuals labor. Making that guarantee is more than cold, it's evil. That's why there's private charity and other voluntary mechanisms for addressing these issues. Forcing one person to pay for the HC of someone else is immoral.

It would also be much better if everyone were eligible for Medicare, not just seniors.

but, none of that will happen, as it would be the end of medical insurance, and the companies selling policies would see to it that such a system will never see the light of day.

The system is already immoral, expanding it to cover more people doesn't make it any less immoral, it only expands the scope of the systems immorality.

 

[Cruella]

How many people even cook at home anymore? Or do they consider throwing together a boxed packaged dinner and call that cooking? Getting back to basics is not only healthier it's also cheaper without all the additives.

 

[PLC1]

You're saying that it would be "cold" if they didn't have a guaranteed "right" to the products of another individuals labor. Making that guarantee is more than cold, it's evil. That's why there's private charity and other voluntary mechanisms for addressing these issues. Forcing one person to pay for the HC of someone else is immoral.

The system is already immoral, expanding it to cover more people doesn't make it any less immoral, it only expands the scope of the systems immorality.

I think we have a basic philosophical disagreement here.

If I read your posts correctly, your philosophy is that any collective payment is wrong.

I see some things as being an individual benefit, and so should be paid for by the individual: Houses, food, cars, etc. all fall into that category.
Other things, however, are a collective benefit and should be paid for collectively: Schools, parks, highways, and, yes, hospitals, all fall into that category.

Further, while taxation without representation may be tyranny, taxation with representation is necessary for civilized society.

 

[dogtowner]

I think we have a basic philosophical disagreement here.

agreed

If I read your posts correctly, your philosophy is that any collective payment is wrong.

I see some things as being an individual benefit, and so should be paid for by the individual: Houses, food, cars, etc. all fall into that category.
Other things, however, are a collective benefit and should be paid for collectively: Schools, parks, highways, and, yes, hospitals, all fall into that category.

Further, while taxation without representation may be tyranny, taxation with representation is necessary for civilized society.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think we have a basic philosophical disagreement here.

Yes we do. I do not ascribe to the immoral view that one person's need is a legitimate moral claim to the property of another.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

Such a belief is immoral, it is evil, it abolishes the rights of the individual for the expressed purpose of using him as forced labor, mere chattel, to be sacrificed at the whim of society in the name of the "greater good".

If I read your posts correctly, your philosophy is that any collective payment is wrong.

You're not reading it correctly... I have no problem with collective arrangements so long as they are voluntary, what you're defending is forced collectivization, and that is immoral.

Further, while taxation without representation may be tyranny, taxation with representation is necessary for civilized society.

I'm talking about the forced redistribution of wealth. A society that violates the individual rights of some for the exclusive benefits of others is not civilized, it's evil. It's a nation of cannibals that consumes those members of the collective with the greatest ability in order to perpetuate the lives of those with the greatest need. Any society based on such an immoral foundation is doomed to failure, eventually you run out of other people's money.

 

[Cruella]

taxation with representation is necessary for civilized society.

So we were all represented when Obamacare passed? At the time it passed, over 60% of the people said they didn't want it.

Prior to 1913 how did the country expand and prosper?

 

[PLC1]

So we were all represented when Obamacare passed? At the time it passed, over 60% of the people said they didn't want it.

Prior to 1913 how did the country expand and prosper?

It was passed by our elected representatives. If we don't like what they've done, it's our right to vote them out of office.

 

[PLC1]

Yes we do. I do not ascribe to the immoral view that one person's need is a legitimate moral claim to the property of another.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

Such a belief is immoral, it is evil, it abolishes the rights of the individual for the expressed purpose of using him as forced labor, mere chattel, to be sacrificed at the whim of society in the name of the "greater good".


You're not reading it correctly... I have no problem with collective arrangements so long as they are voluntary, what you're defending is forced collectivization, and that is immoral.


I'm talking about the forced redistribution of wealth. A society that violates the individual rights of some for the exclusive benefits of others is not civilized, it's evil. It's a nation of cannibals that consumes those members of the collective with the greatest ability in order to perpetuate the lives of those with the greatest need. Any society based on such an immoral foundation is doomed to failure, eventually you run out of other people's money.

So, taxes should be voluntary?

Should the motorist have the option of buying untaxed gas, for example? And, if he takes that option, does he have the right to use the highways?

 

[Cruella]

It was passed by our elected representatives. If we don't like what they've done, it's our right to vote them out of office.

You mean they were coerced and paid off to pass it.

 

[dogtowner]

It was passed by our elected representatives. If we don't like what they've done, it's our right to vote them out of office.

we did but it changes nothing.