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

[PLC1]

Yes, if medicare were less unsustainable more people would be willing to buy into it. Of course since it is still a part of a huge ponzi scheme and still unsustainable it is still doomed to either failure or an endless need for an infusion of funds which is still failure.

It's hard to see how a private, for profit company could compete with Medicare, either in the current form or in the form we're suggesting.

The same way any other insurance company operates. People voluntarily sign up, pay premiums, then get an agreed upon portion of their future health care paid for by the insurance company. Smart people pay for the mundane and expected costs and only use insurance for the catastrophic. Others get the policies that pay out more in benefits but also costs more in premiums. Since insurance costs an average of 4% of health care costs everyone can expect to pay 4% more than they otherwise would if they paid for everything themselves (thats why the smart people save 4% by paying cash) . In exchange they get coverage if they are one of the unlucky few who experiences some unforeseen and catastrophic event. They also invested their own money along the way or just saved it so that they have a way to pay for the everyday costs. now is about the time that you are saying that the elderly experience huge health care costs compared to the rest of us. Yes and the elderly are the only ones who had a lifetime to pay premiums and save up for that time. Statistically most rich people are (wait for it) old.

So what about the poor? We were not talking about the poor. We were talking about those who could pay into either medicare or some other insurance. The poor should look to a different source of help than medicare because it was never intended to be anything other than a program for people who paid premiums.

Can a private company compete with medicare? Well lets see, medicare is going to go broke because it is an unsustainable system. Medicare is costing all of america one of the largest items in the entire budget. We cannot afford to keep it as it is killing the whole economy. We really have no choice but to get rid of it so it really does not even matter that YES a private company could do better. All that money that went into medicare in the first place could have gone into private premiums. And since social security has an average rate of return that is so far below the average rate of return for just about any other investment those private companies could have invested the money in stocks picked by throwing darts at a board and done better.

Medicare is only in financial trouble because of the soaring cost of health care in general. Were we to have a Medicare that included everyone, and that was a real insurance plan that paid when there were catastrophic costs involved, then costs would drop dramatically.

The system that they have in Singapore is similar to what I've been describing, and they pay far and away less than we do, and for better outcomes.

We interrupt Washington's feud over the president's "way forward" for a brief word on a path not taken, courtesy of the only rich nation that boasts universal coverage with health outcomes better than ours while spending one-fifth as much per person on health care. Introducing (drum roll please): Singapore.

 

[dogtowner]

Medicare is only in financial trouble because of the soaring cost of health care in general.

not true. while spiraling costs have had a negative effect, so has constantly changing rules regarding eligibility which screwed up the actuarial aspects behind the rates. vote buying comes at a cost.

 

[PLC1]

not true. while spiraling costs have had a negative effect, so has constantly changing rules regarding eligibility which screwed up the actuarial aspects behind the rates. vote buying comes at a cost.

?? Anyone over 65 is eligible. Isn't that how it's always been?

 

[Dr.Who]

Medicare is only in financial trouble because of the soaring cost of health care in general. Were we to have a Medicare that included everyone, and that was a real insurance plan that paid when there were catastrophic costs involved, then costs would drop dramatically.

The system that they have in Singapore is similar to what I've been describing, and they pay far and away less than we do, and for better outcomes.

Whata you are describing is still coercive in nature so I really would not care if it could be sustainable.

We would still be better off finding sustainable and voluntary plans.

 

[dogtowner]

?? Anyone over 65 is eligible. Isn't that how it's always been?

used to have to vest in till they needed those votes reagan created with amnesty then instant on.
they play the same games with SS.

 

[dogtowner]

Whata you are describing is still coercive in nature so I really would not care if it could be sustainable.

We would still be better off finding sustainable and voluntary plans.

all such plans rely on gaining premiums from those who use few services to balance those who use many.

lots has to change in the US to see certain of the cost differences noted elsewhere.

 

[GenSeneca]

So, taxes should be voluntary?

Any redistribution of wealth should be voluntary. It's immoral when you redistribute wealth by force. I'm not sure what part of that you're having trouble with... Read the following scenario about the redistribution of wealth and see if you can figure out which one is moral and which one is immoral:

Big Rob and I are walking down the street and a homeless guy asks us to buy him some food. I want to buy the guy some food but I don't have any money. Big Rob has lots of money (evil rich 1%er), so I ask him to buy the guy some food.

Option 1: Big Rob agrees and voluntarily buys the homeless guy some food.
Option 2: Big Rob refuses, so I use force to take his money against his will and then use it to buy the homeless guy some food.

Which scenario option for the redistribution of wealth is moral and which one is immoral?

Unless you have an inverted view of morality, you should be able to answer that correctly. Now, apply whatever "need" you like in place of food; Healthcare, housing, clothing, old age pension, etc. The morality, or immorality, of the action doesn't change even if the "need" does.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sometimes, ideology and philosophy clash with reality. When that happens, reality prevails.

Which is why you're solutions are doomed to fail... Eventually you will run out of other peoples money.

 

[GenSeneca]

The problem when it comes to medical care is that we aren't willing to say to the patient who hasn't paid in to the insurance plan, "Sorry, but no treatment for you. Go to your church, and maybe they'll give you charity, but we have to make a profit."

If there are no laws forcing others to pay for your HC, then the hospitals and charities know about it and make the voluntary arrangements necessary ahead of time so they are prepared for such a scenario. That way when a patient comes in without insurance the hospital can tell him, "Your fellow Americans are generous people and have voluntarily created charities to cover the cost of your treatment."

 

[Dr.Who]

all such plans rely on gaining premiums from those who use few services to balance those who use many.

.

Well that is the job of actuarials. Every insurance company has them. They determine what benefits can be promised and what premiums need to be set at.

 

[Dr.Who]

If there are no laws forcing others to pay for your HC, then the hospitals and charities know about it and make the voluntary arrangements necessary ahead of time so they are prepared for such a scenario. That way when a patient comes in without insurance the hospital can tell him, "Your fellow Americans are generous people and have voluntarily created charities to cover the cost of your treatment."

Yes happens all the time. But wait, that is not all. They also agree not to charge at times. And the doctors and the nurse also agree to work Pro Bono at times (it is part of their ethical code), and sometimes for people who can't pay they make arrangements for the person to make payments.

There are lots of ways of helping people who can't pay. And not a single one of those ways needs to include forcing Big Rob to pay for the care.

 

[dogtowner]

Well that is the job of actuarials. Every insurance company has them. They determine what benefits can be promised and what premiums need to be set at.

but the government can choose to ignore all that as they care more about votes now than insolvancy later.

 

[PLC1]

Any redistribution of wealth should be voluntary. It's immoral when you redistribute wealth by force. I'm not sure what part of that you're having trouble with... Read the following scenario about the redistribution of wealth and see if you can figure out which one is moral and which one is immoral:

Big Rob and I are walking down the street and a homeless guy asks us to buy him some food. I want to buy the guy some food but I don't have any money. Big Rob has lots of money (evil rich 1%er), so I ask him to buy the guy some food.

Option 1: Big Rob agrees and voluntarily buys the homeless guy some food.
Option 2: Big Rob refuses, so I use force to take his money against his will and then use it to buy the homeless guy some food.

Which scenario option for the redistribution of wealth is moral and which one is immoral?

Unless you have an inverted view of morality, you should be able to answer that correctly. Now, apply whatever "need" you like in place of food; Healthcare, housing, clothing, old age pension, etc. The morality, or immorality, of the action doesn't change even if the "need" does.

How about this scenario: My town wants a new park, so the city votes for a sales tax to pay for it. Since the tax is voluntary, I decide not to pay it, but I still go to the park every Saturday for my town league softball game.

Who is not paying their way? How is that moral?

 

[Dr.Who]

How about this scenario: My town wants a new park, so the city votes for a sales tax to pay for it. Since the tax is voluntary, I decide not to pay it, but I still go to the park every Saturday for my town league softball game.

Who is not paying their way? How is that moral?

Are you suggesting that you decided to make all your purchases in other cities in order to avoid the sales tax? If that counts as avoiding the tax then the person who simply buys less stuff than another is also avoiding the tax. Different people all over town will pay varying amounts for the park and their use of that park will most likely be totally not correlated with how much they pay. The system itself can never be fair.

On the other hand if the park is built by Wal-mart and they sell passes to the park then everyone pays exactly the right amount.

But, to help construct an argument with you...
Let's suppose that the city wants to build a park. And they create a "tax"* in which citizens of the city mail in whatever they choose. You decide not to pay any but still go to the park regularly. No one was defrauded and no one was coerced so it is completely moral. There are countless examples of things being funded like this all over the world and I have never heard anyone complain that it is immoral. Consider some examples, that is how churches are funded - are you not thankful that you don't have to fund anyone else's church? That is also how the fireworks display in many towns are funded. That is also how all charities collect a portion of their funds. It is self evident that there are some people who will fund the church but not the fireworks and some people who will fund the fireworks but not the church? Both get funded to the degree that they are important to people and no one gets hurt.

*that example is not really a tax and was more of a donation so lets create a situation in which it really is a tax in case someone complains. In this situation the city issues tags which are affixed randomly to items for sale all over the city. Any time a person buys one of those items they must pay the tax - no getting out of once your order is rung up. Go into a store and half of the bags of apples might have a tag on them while half of the apples might not. Furthermore, the tags are moved around from item to item quite randomly and people are even free to move the tags themselves.

 

[PLC1]

Are you suggesting that you decided to make all your purchases in other cities in order to avoid the sales tax? If that counts as avoiding the tax then the person who simply buys less stuff than another is also avoiding the tax. Different people all over town will pay varying amounts for the park and their use of that park will most likely be totally not correlated with how much they pay. The system itself can never be fair.

On the other hand if the park is built by Wal-mart and they sell passes to the park then everyone pays exactly the right amount.

But, to help construct an argument with you...
Let's suppose that the city wants to build a park. And they create a "tax"* in which citizens of the city mail in whatever they choose. You decide not to pay any but still go to the park regularly. No one was defrauded and no one was coerced so it is completely moral. There are countless examples of things being funded like this all over the world and I have never heard anyone complain that it is immoral. Consider some examples, that is how churches are funded - are you not thankful that you don't have to fund anyone else's church? That is also how the fireworks display in many towns are funded. That is also how all charities collect a portion of their funds. It is self evident that there are some people who will fund the church but not the fireworks and some people who will fund the fireworks but not the church? Both get funded to the degree that they are important to people and no one gets hurt.

*that example is not really a tax and was more of a donation so lets create a situation in which it really is a tax in case someone complains. In this situation the city issues tags which are affixed randomly to items for sale all over the city. Any time a person buys one of those items they must pay the tax - no getting out of once your order is rung up. Go into a store and half of the bags of apples might have a tag on them while half of the apples might not. Furthermore, the tags are moved around from item to item quite randomly and people are even free to move the tags themselves.

Well, you know, that is how churches are funded. No one has to donate to a church, after all. It might even work for a new park, perhaps. Should we try to fund the military the same way?