I will. Destroying our insurance industry is the single most damaging blow the socialists could inflict upon this country. In America we enjoy the best healthcare in the world, by lightyears,
This is such a blatant lie as to be laughable. The default measure of health care quality is to measure life expectancy
. We're tied with Cuba. Go USA.
Longtime members of this forum and friends of members of this forum are dead due to raw medical incompetence in this country, including the woman in my signature, who would be alive today had she only had a slightly more attentive doctor mere weeks earlier. Another woman died from a punctured lung...during a knee surgery.
Forcing the poor into ER is flat-out ridiculous. One member had to wait until an infection became an emergency, so she spent five days in ICU because she could not afford antibiotics. Another could not go to the doctor for her headaches. Rather than spend several hundred dollars on preventative care, we're happy to spend a quarter of a million for her to suffer through chemo for years.
Norway solved its MSRA problem. Here it's still a terror.
and people from all other countries (yes, even Europe) are pouring into the United States for the most up-to-date treatment. A century ago, the wealthy might travel by steam power to see a specialist in Paris or Vienna, but today it is Johns Hopkins or Vanderbilt.
And yet for the not so wealthy, 'medical tourism' is about going the other direction. When I lacked insurance, the Mayo was one of the few institutions that would treat me, yes. They wanted $3,000 just for the evaluation. For one of the most routine surgeries in the world. For that, I could fly to Prague, meet some Elliquiy members, get treated, and fly back.
The excellence of the Mayo and Hopkins has less to do with the magic of the talent they hire and more to do with the fact that they have developed better incentives for doctors to actually treat patients.
This is because our powerful free market has attracted the brightest doctors in the world, and there is great incentive to research and invent the very best techniques money can buy. Whatever their overhead, insurance companies compete for your business - naturally regulating the cost and the services offered. Once they've gone out of business, it will be nigh impossible to restart the industry, and the costs and benefits of medicine will be in the hands of incompetent bureaucrats.
Insurance companies don't compete for business in many states. Exempt from antitrust laws, they are happy to establish monopolies and engage in blatant price fixing without recourse, while providing said same incompetent bureaucrats in the form of rescission workers.
I cannot believe this article in Forbes has the writer cackling with glee as the unlikelyhood of their survival looms near. Already, he states, they are seeking other investments. This is bad news for the healthcare sector, as Medicare's wasteful spending, easy fraud, and outright denial of service demonstrates.
Let me guess, you were shouting 'Death Panels!' right alongside the rest when it was proposed to take care of the main offender of said wasteful spending.
The bomb in Obamacare is the stipulation that anyone who does not purchase $2100 in annual health insurance goes to jail. Over my dead body.
That's a bridge that will be burned when it happens.
You'll forgive my American bias, but when I talk to people who have travelled to the U.S. to receive healthcare they invariably complain about waiting periods in their home country, usually six to eight months. They are happy to have the opportunity to spend whatever it costs for lifesaving procedures, particularly when they were unlikely to survive the waiting period. I fear that socialized medicine in America will leave them and us with nowhere left to run.
This is usually for very specific problems in said health care system. This isn't true of Japan, for example. "We need to schedule a surgery... how does next Tuesday look?"
Japan has other problems (getting a second opinion can be seen as insulting to the original doctor and is generally Not Done), but that's cultural.
This is the crux of the issue at hand. When you buy insurance, you gamble that you will need expensive procedures that outway the costs of your premiums. When companies sell you insurance, they gamble that they will be able to recuperate the expenses through the power of investment. Allowing people to purchase insurance with preexisting conditions is like opening a casino where everyone wins, thus the need for an individual mandate.
No, when you buy health insurance, you are taking advantage of said provider's ability to dictate prices. The larger the insurer, the more powerful their ability to dictate.
To say nothing of the fact that, as a self employed person with conditions on my record, it would cost me six thousand dollars a month to buy insurance. And I'd still have to pay for my surgery out of pocket. That isn't free market competition.
No, you and your armed forces colleagues will continue to enjoy your benefits, as will public sector employees and elected officials. The private sector will continue to shoulder the burden of your government benefits. This will dramatically reduce the costs associated with hiring a public sector employee, increasing the size and scope of government.
This is a non sequitur. Two, actually. It neither follows that public employee costs will reduce because of a collapse of private insurers, nor does it follow that reduced employee costs would cause a larger government.
No offense taken, but how am I being likened to an adherent of a suicide pact? The idea of death panels being 'trotted out' is a very rational fear that a government bureaucrat will decide which procedures will be covered and which will not. The fact that this healthcare package only applies to people aged 20-60 and is being paid for through cuts to medicare is in essence 'trying to kill my grandmother'. The rhetoric is used to stress the importance of this issue, which I don't feel that proponents of Obamacare fully grasp.
"Death panels" was trotted out to giving older people actual end of life care, rather than wasting 60% of our health care spending in making them suffer for six more months. Their lifespan would be increased by a far greater amount if they had better care before 65. It was originally a Republican proposal, but because Obama tried it, that makes it worthy of attack.
Of course, people such as yourself blatantly overlook the fact that private health insurers essentially are barriers to care in our current system, often denying critically needed treatments.
As it stands, a person with a life-threatening illness and no insurance or assets will receive the care they need. They also receive special protections as hospital bills cannot produce asset seizure or wage garnishment the same way other liabilities can. It can wreck your credit, but losing the ability to borrow money does not put you on the street or force you into poverty. For people in need, there are many philanthropic organizations that help people get expensive operations or basic healthcare. Neighborhood churches make that a large part of their missionary outreach, and is a favorite charity among anonymous donors.
And yet, the prime cause of bankruptcies in the United States is what?
And how many of them had insurance?
Half a percent of the voting population loses their insurance each year. That sort of bullshit is only going to go on for so long before the fraud gets tossed on its head.
As for requiring legitimate identification, it will be even easier for unscrupulous people to defraud the system, as illegal immigrants often have valid identification from sanctuary states. Already they come from all over the world to benefit from our topnotch healthcare services, imagine how much more when it is 'free'. This is to say nothing of hypochondriacs who overutilise the system as it stands.
Nonpayers already do place that burden on our system. Go to a medical forum and you will see doctors bitch about how good people who are down on their luck struggle to afford basic care while they have to give effectively free ER care to bums and druggies.
And, of course, the threat of a hypochondria declaration did nearly kill the friend of another member here, who had a life threatening condition, but the hospital could not find it after five visits. If another friend had not stood up for them, your 'finest healthcare in the world' would have left them to die in agony.
Because the hospital would not do a fucking X Ray.
I would like to see this law repealed. No good will come of it, and the damage done has been a terrible price, already. I don't see how a pencil pusher from Washington could help a profit driven industry to cut costs without denying us the best possible treatment, or allowing more people access to it will help drive down the costs for paying customers. What I do see is an internal threat to my American way of life.
Of course you don't see it. In common parlance, this is because you are 'drinking the kool-aid'. You have bought bullshit right-wing talking points hook, line, and sinker, and happily regurgitate the bald-faced lies you've been told.
Eventually, however, reality will assert itself.
There is something to be said for the value of preventive medicine over curative measures, but what are they going to do, force me to go to the doctor for regular checkups? Doctors who graduated top of their class, and are on call 24/7, you want to hold them to an acceptable profit ratio?
Doctors in general are overworked and underpaid, very little health care money actually goes to them. Most of it goes to overpriced goods (I paid $40 for a piece of gauze and tape, for fuck's sake) and frivolous testing.
How do you expect to keep research and development dedicated to medicine?
Probably the same way America got to that lead in the first place, and why other nations are catching up to the US while American prestige is falling.
What is going to happen to lesser countries when America needs more doctors?
Nothing. We'll just hire the Indian doctors currently working as New York taxi drivers.
Is my smoking and drinking and having unprotected sex a waste of taxpayer dollars? Are they going to have more say in my dietary choices?
Well, I know some medical professionals -as is- who would give you less time of day -right now- simply because you do those two things. They'd much rather be treating people who just had something horrible happen to them through little to no fault of their own, rather than some ignorant jackass who waltzes into trouble.
That is never going to happen. Only, instead of simply not doing business with an insurance company, and trusting the free market to regulate itself, I'm going to have to go to guns or butter with the government, who would love nothing more than to suck more blood from free enterprise, put the unemployed in labor camps, and then just write us off at retirement.
You don't even know what the market hypothesis is, where it works, or why, and believe our current system of lobbyist infested corporatism is 'free enterprise'. Hint: It isn't free enterprise if lobbyists can insert legal barriers to entry.
If you refuse to learn basic terminology, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously.