Health Insurance: cheating us?

[Strem2]

And, they won't change in spite of insistence by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

It's Called Rescission of Coverage.... They simply cancel the policies of those who get the wrong diagnoses. They also have "lifetime limits" and cancel the polices of those they can't rescind once they hit those limits.

I have two such stories, but on Capital Hill they've been hearing more such stories this week.

We're all healthy on this forum, but what about our sisters, children born with birth defects, parents who aren't quite old enough for medicare yet?

This is why we need a public option, and this is why the public option needs to have healthy people join as well as unhealthy people. The execs won't be earning millions of dollars to keep your sick friends and family members out.

But, if only the private system rejects take the new option, it will be extremely expensive. Healthy people, unite and make the switch when we can!

[Apollia]

I agree that the system definitely needs to be changed somehow. The way it is now is intolerable and unacceptable.

I recently saw the documentary Sicko by Michael Moore, about the USA's messed up, horrendously overpriced health care system, corrupt insurance companies, and how the system got this way to begin with, etc. Very interesting and worth watching.

It's quite sad in many parts - so many people dying and suffering just because of not being rich enough to afford adequate health care, or because their insurance companies ripped them off.

But at least the parts about the excellent free universal health care systems in other countries provide some reasons to be optimistic, since they show that apparently, not only can such systems exist, but they can also function exquisitely and efficiently. (Hopefully it's an accurate portrayal.)


I think we Americans really ought to be getting a lot more for our tax money - like universal free health care. France, the UK, Canada, and even Cuba have it, but we don't.

I'm not sure how we would go about implementing a free universal health care system, but, probably looking at other countries' examples would provide some excellent clues.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[aggie]

we definitely need socialized medicine...it is so ridiculous that people think we will become a socialist, communist of fascist society because of that...they think government will choose our doctors, etc. not true...right now the insurance companies choose our doctors, what tests and treatment we can have an when...if you are fortunate to a least have some insurance. being on the clerical end of the medical profession...i think the portrayal of sicko is pretty accurate....it is agonizing every day to try to explain to people why they can't have a medication or test that they should have....a lot of politicians cannot relate because of the best medical care that is readily and freely available to them. they say with socialized medicine people will wait for treatment...they wait and sometimes are denied treatment now...and what about the people who don't even have the luxury of waiting for care...they just know they can't afford anything!....the er becomes the place to go where you can't be turned away...that ups the premiums for those paying...and if you need a chemo drug you can't afford...you are not going to get it in the emergency room....

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Apollia

I recently saw the documentary Sicko by Michael Moore, about the USA's messed up,
and how the system got this way to begin with, etc.

It's quite sad - so many people dying and suffering,
just because ...

But the excellent free universal health care systems in other countries
function exquisitely and efficiently. (Hopefully it's an accurate portrayal.)

IF
you mistakenly believe, (sick-care insurance) is expensive now;
just you wait 'til it's "free" - as then you'll be paying for it, with your very life.
How could anyone know?
Born, & then raised in a communist country, such of us know, from 1st. hand experience,
how the USA (for the past 100 yrs.) has been sold...
But such awareness
requires -
1. Parents, yes both male & female, continuing raising their children right.
&
2. Medical-doctors, continuing acting as CHEERleaders,
as they First-aid, their patients into getting again well...
&
3. School-system, with science-courses supportive of #2 above;
plus HISTORY-classes, intact as it occurred;
as opposed to the "dumbed-down" (know nothing)
Electorate that hopelessly has mucked-up the works...

All these factors, and more, are vitally necessary for a society to remain FREE, strong, happy & healthy...;
and
just the opposite direction of the morasse the USA has allowed itself being sold into.

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

IF
you mistakenly believe, (sick-care insurance) is expensive now;

Mistakenly? If any person can't afford it, it's too expensive for them. In that case, it's not a mistaken belief, it's just a fact.

Besides, insurance isn't necessarily that useful even if you _can_ afford it. There's no guarantee that your insurance company will cooperate and pay for any needed care without trying to weasel their way out of it somehow.

If a company gives people such poor service that it literally kills them (such as by delaying or denying health care they need), then, I think it's too expensive no matter what the price. Even if it doesn't kill them but just needlessly makes their lives worse for the sake of profit, it's too expensive.

In fact, it's far worse than just "too expensive" - it's absolutely despicable for anyone to profit from hurting and misleading people who thought that they could trust their insurance company to help them in their time of need.

just you wait 'til it's "free" - as then you'll be paying for it, with your very life.

Yes, it's quite possible that if we tried to create a free universal health care system, it might be done poorly, might fail, and might be even worse than what we have now.

But, on the other hand, maybe there's a chance a free universal health care system here would work at least as well as the systems of France, the UK, Canada, or Cuba appeared to work according to the documentary Sicko (which might or might not be accurate).

Is the USA really so much worse than those other countries that we couldn't do it?

How could anyone know?
Born, & then raised in a communist country, such of us know, from 1st. hand experience,
how the USA (for the past 100 yrs.) has been sold...

Interesting, you were born and raised in a communist country? Which one?

All these factors, and more, are vitally necessary for a society to remain FREE, strong, happy & healthy...;
and
just the opposite direction of the morasse the USA has allowed itself being sold into.

Good points. We do have quite a lot of things that need improvement here, not just the health care system.

Maybe it would be best to work on improving multiple things at once (improving education, reduction of poverty in general, etc.) instead of focusing on health care alone.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[liamona]

I'm reading the latest press release on this from the Green Party:

2009-06-18 Greens call for new GAO, Congressional Budget Office studies on Single-Payer health care

Greens cited past studies from the General Accounting Office (GAO)
and the Congressional Budget Office in the 1990s showing that
Single-Payer would reduce the cost of health care while covering
every American. The Green Party will make health care reform and
the demand for Single-Payer a major focus of the party's 2009 Annual
National Meeting in Durham, North Carolina, July 23-26
(2009-06-10 Green Party to hold 2009 national meeting in Durham, North Carolina, July 23-26).

According to a 1991 GAO report, "If the US were to shift to a system
of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings
in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be
more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."
("Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States,"
http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf). More reports are archived
at pnhp.org
(Single Payer System Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program).

"The overall savings we'd gain from Single-Payer will boost the
ailing economy and will cut bankruptcies by nearly two thirds," said
Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party of the United States, who
noted a recent Harvard study showing that "Medical problems
contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies
in 2007" (Physicians for a National Health Program press release,
June 4, 2009,
Illness, medical bills linked to nearly two-thirds of bankruptcies: Harvard study | Physicians for a National Health Program).

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Apollia

Yes,
if we tried to create a free universal health care system, it might be done poorly, might fail,
and might be even worse - than what we have now.

What could be worse, than donating your life, to entities who care less,
in fact they don't care one iota, at all about precious *you*.
So yes,
it's going to get alot! worse, the world over, per design, & with their full co-operation; but hopefully not yours.

Originally Posted by Apollia

But, maybe there's a chance a free universal health care system here would work,
at least as well as the systems of France, the UK, Canada, or Cuba, appeared to work,
according to the documentary Sicko (which might or might not be accurate).

Is the USA really so much worse than those other countries, that we couldn't do it?

And by what 1st-hand experience, do you know, which sick-care systems work, ie: 'well'? -

How do you personally define well:
Murder increasing innocent preborns, even as they are born?
Harm kids who survive, with "the war on..."? (growing # of concocted chronicities)
Force on school-kids, ever more shots?
Harm bigger kids, with more of the same 'burn,cut,poison',etc?
Kill any person in a coma?, or other un-desirables.
Forced 'environmentalist' control-schemes work, acc. to 'plan'.
7. Slaughter... acc. to those 'in charge', the world must be pared-down to say "500 million"???,
iow 6-billion people.

re: "there's a chance a free universal health care system here would work" (??) - when?? will you Awaken.

Originally Posted by Apollia

Good points.
We do have quite a lot of things that need improvement here, not just the health care system.

Maybe it would be best to work on improving multiple things at once
(improving education, reduction of poverty in general, etc.) instead of focusing on health care alone.

Best wishes,
Apollia

Yes, and what historically "improved" any of the human conditions, included the FREE-market system <- which now is all but destroyed.

Originally Posted by Apollia

There's no guarantee
that your insurance company will cooperate, and pay for any needed care without trying to weasel their way out of it somehow.

That in this world - are no guarantees; doesn't mean at least one (of several) care-insurance co. positively encourage people cont... in excellent! health; and in unfortunate circumstances, they do take care of their customers well. - If they didn't, people, at least in a FREE-market system, are then free to start such a company.

Be, live, & stay well!

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

What could be worse, than donating your life, to entities who care less,
in fact they don't care one iota, at all about precious *you*.

Well, the doctors in other countries in the Sicko documentary seemed like sincerely caring folks.

So yes,
it's going to get alot! worse, the world over, per design, & with their full co-operation; but hopefully not yours.

Well... hopefully I'm not that easily fooled, or that misled, as to go along with anything that would make things worse.

What makes you so sure things are going to get a lot worse? What would make things better?

And by what 1st-hand experience, do you know, which sick-care systems work, ie: 'well'? -

Admittedly, no first-hand experience, because I've lived here in the USA my whole life, and have never even visited Canada for longer than a few hours.

What do you think is the best health care system in the world, currently?

How do you personally define well:

The way the health care system appeared to work in France, Canada, the UK, and Cuba in the Sicko documentary seemed pretty good to me, but of course it's possible that it presented a biased or idealized view.

Have you seen Sicko? If so, what did you think of it?

Murder increasing innocent preborns, even as they are born?
Harm kids who survive, with "the war on..."? (growing # of concocted chronicities)
Force on school-kids, ever more shots?
Harm bigger kids, with more of the same 'burn,cut,poison',etc?
Kill any person in a coma?, or other un-desirables.
Forced 'environmentalist' control-schemes work, acc. to 'plan'.
7. Slaughter... acc. to those 'in charge', the world must be pared-down to say "500 million"???,
iow 6-billion people.

That all sounds quite dreadful. I won't deny it's possible that _some_ people in charge somewhere might have such horrible plans. After all, Nazi Germany happened, Stalin's Russia happened, etc. - so it's not like genocide is totally impossible and never happened ever before in history. (But I doubt it ever involved universal free health care).

I'm not one to automatically dismiss all "conspiracy theories", as if a conspiracy could never possibly actually exist. I think denying that conspiracies _could_ possibly exist is really close-minded, and just makes it easier for conspirators to get away with conspiracies.

But, I don't think free health care being available to everyone has to entail any of what you mentioned above. I also quite doubt the results of free health care are anywhere near that horrible in France, Canada, the UK, or Cuba (but maybe I'm wrong).

I'm definitely totally against any kind of health care being forced on anyone involuntarily, like mandatory vaccinations, or anything else.


I have to admit, you did get me a little worried about a lot of distressing things, like:

* Abortion - which, unfortunately, might end up being more common if it were free. But, on the other hand, if birth control pills and other prevention methods were free, maybe abortion would become less common. It would be interesting to see what the statistics on abortion are in countries with free health care, and find out whether abortion increased or decreased whenever free health care was introduced.

* Way too many children being given drugs for ADHD, when quite possibly they're just energetic or bored instead of "mentally ill". If the drugs were free, that dreadful practice might become even more widespread.

* The whole mercury/autism/vaccine debate, and the possibility that some people might think mandatory vaccinations are a good idea.

* If drugs were too cheap (or free), then people in general might resort to pharmaceuticals more often than is wise, when more natural methods of healing would be better.

So, now that I think about it a bit more, it does seem like there could be ways free health care could have bad results. But, on the other hand, I think free health care would probably be very likely to stop a lot of the totally preventable deaths, suffering, and financial ruin that happen as a result of our current system.

I don't know, I guess I just need to research this whole topic more sometime, and take a closer look at the existing systems in other countries.

Whether it turns out to be overall more good than bad, or more bad than good, depends on so many factors. This seems to be an even more complicated topic than I initially assumed.

re: "there's a chance a free universal health care system here would work" (??)

I said _maybe_ there's a chance.

- when?? will you Awaken.

It usually just takes some evidence and/or logical arguments for me to change my mind on things.

Yes, and what historically "improved" any of the human conditions, included the FREE-market system <- which now is all but destroyed.

I don't really trust the free market system 100%, but I do sympathise with a lot of libertarian views. For instance, I loathe taxation. If I had to choose between either having no taxes or having free health care, I would actually have some trouble deciding, because I think taxation is so insidiously destructive (for many of the reasons given in that link) that the problems it causes rival even the problems caused by the high cost of health care.

What do you think we'd have to do to repair the free market system?

That in this world - are no guarantees; doesn't mean at least one (of several) care-insurance co. positively encourage people cont... in excellent! health; and in unfortunate circumstances, they do take care of their customers well.

What company is that?

- If they didn't, people, at least in a FREE-market system, are then free to start such a company.

It would be nice if the government would get rid of the fees and taxes which make it more difficult to start and run a business profitably. I would guess many existing businesses like it this way, since it discourages the rise of competition.

Be, live, & stay well!

Thanks, you too.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Apollia

...
The way the health care system appeared to work in France, Canada, the UK, and Cuba in the Sicko documentary seemed pretty good to me, but of course it's possible that it presented a biased or idealized view.
...

Haven't seen Sicko, but I do know many health care systems outside the US seem to work fairly well. I live in the Netherlands, where a basic package is provided for all for a base premium. Extra insurance can be bought too. The system works OK. Most problems are with long waiting lists for some procedures (not enough budget).

...
* Abortion - which, unfortunately, might end up being more common if it were free. But, on the other hand, if birth control pills and other prevention methods were free, maybe abortion would become less common. It would be interesting to see what the statistics on abortion are in countries with free health care, and find out whether abortion increased or decreased whenever free health care was introduced.

This has been researched a lot. In the Netherlands abortions are free. Lots of anti-conception are in the basic health insurance package too.

The common agreement is that abortions occur much less than in other countries - that it doesn't cost money apparently does not increase the average number of abortions. It helps that sex education is probably (what I hear from it) much better than in the US. Same goes for Scandinavian countries, Germany etc.

...
I don't really trust the free market system 100%, but I do sympathise with a lot of libertarian views. For instance, I loathe taxation. If I had to choose between either having no taxes or having free health care, I would actually have some trouble deciding, because I think taxation is so insidiously destructive (for many of the reasons given in that link) that the problems it causes rival even the problems caused by the high cost of health care.

What's the aversion to taxes about? Taxes provide an efficient way to provide services and infrastructure for all (roads, education, government) that would be horribly more expensive if everyone had to do that himself or wouldn't even exist because of the huge costs (how many people could pay for a road by themselves?). Didn't follow the link, but what alternative would there be for taxes?

It would be nice if the government would get rid of the fees and taxes which make it more difficult to start and run a business profitably. I would guess many existing businesses like it this way, since it discourages the rise of competition.

Nope. It's part of the cost of doing business. If the fees and taxes were much lower for all companies, prices would go down. If all companies pay similar fees and taxes, prices go up. Hasn't got to do with profitabilility as such, only with the size of the market (how many people can pay high prices). Profitablility is derived from the nett price the company charges for a product or service.

Example:
A product gives the company 5 profit per unit. Sales prices is 10. Fees and taxes are 20, so the consumer pays 30. If the fees or taxes increase or decrease it has no influence on the profit per unit for the company.

[funchy]

If you don't like the health policy you have now, switch to another policy or company. If you don't like dealing with health insurance, don't buy it. If everyone refused to buy these crummy policies, do you think they'd still offer them? Of course not.

100 years ago everyone paid for health care out of their own pockets. Think we can't survive without the big insurance corporations looking out for us? The Amish go without health insurance because they don't need it.

There is no such thing as "free" health insurance, in other words raising our taxes. So the people who take care of themselves, save/budget for their own medical care, and are middle class end up paying for everyone else. That's not my idea of "free".

Originally Posted by spirit

What's the aversion to taxes about? Taxes provide an efficient way to provide services and infrastructure for all (roads, education, government)

Taxes are NOT efficient. Depending on the government department, 40-60 cents out of every tax dollar are wasted in administrative costs and bureaucracy.

We need some public infrastructure, but most roads are paid for by those who use them (local taxes, tolls, gas taxes). In the case of social programs (welfare, food stamps, medicaid), they're paid for by the working class to subsidize the lower classes. Upper classes and corporations are very good as hiding their income and enjoy many loopholes.

If I had it my way, I'd rather not even pay for education. Public schools are deplorable in many areas, but parents who home-school or pay for private schools don't get a single dollar back. We have kids graduating high school who can barely read and can't do algebra. Schools are also a great place for kids to buy drugs. A % of kids don't even want to be there, and a % of parents think education is a "waste of time". So why do I pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes?! I'd love to see a major education reform. We're still using the education model from the 1800s.

[spirit4711]

@Funchy, I get what you say, but it doesn't mean taxes are bad in itself. It's the bad way they are handled. Same goes for bad school systems. Doesn't mean a school per se is bad.

I guess it's the old socialism (all for all) versus liberalism (one for one) paradigm.

[funchy]

Hi Apollia,

Originally Posted by Apollia

I'm definitely totally against any kind of health care being forced on anyone involuntarily, like mandatory vaccinations, or anything else.... Abortion - which, unfortunately, might end up being more common if it were free.

You seem to be against having other peoples' beliefs being pushed on you, but at the time time you'd like to push women towards your belief on abortion. Why should women be forced away from having abortion as an option?

Take for example the ban on late term abortion. When ended up happening is if the fetus dies on its own on the 7th or 8th month, the distraught woman now has to carry the stillborn corpse inside her. Then she has to go through labor knowing it's dead. Why should someone force this on her? My point is that unless you're in the shoes of the pregnant woman, nobody else has any right to decide for her if abortion is bad.

* The whole mercury/autism/vaccine debate, and the possibility that some people might think mandatory vaccinations are a good idea.

Vaccinations aren't just to protect you, but they're also to control the spread of disease through a population. If 20% of the people don't bother to get vaccinated against a highly-contagious infection, not only do they get sick/die, they keep the germ spreading. The population remains a reservoir for the disease forever.

Conversely, when vaccinations such as smallpox became mandatory, the disease had nobody to infect, and it died out.

I feel like people who are distrustful of all vaccines perhaps have never really seen a person mortally ill or dead from a preventable infectious disease. We forget what it was like to see kids crippled for life from polio. Or for a % of babies under the age of 2 not to survive because of rubella or whooping cough.

* If drugs were too cheap (or free), then people in general might resort to pharmaceuticals more often than is wise, when more natural methods of healing would be better.

I hate to sound cynical, but Americans are kind of lax about their health. As it is right now we have people who "can't afford" medical insurance but they can afford lots of beer and smokes every day. They "can't afford" health food at the grocery store, but most people eat out several times a week... and the less money you have, the more likely you are to choose McDonald's over a salad bar. I've seen insulin dependent diabetics keep eating garbage and end up with feet cut off. I just don't believe most people will people consider natural options when they refuse to do the most basic things.

Add to that our diet is mostly junk food, which we refuse to give up. Go into an American grocery store. They're huge, right? A typical store has the whole (healthy) foods along the perimeter aisles and almost all the other aisles are processed, preserved, junky, altered, stale foods. We LOVE our diets of hamburger helper, ice cream, and coca cola. Sometimes I wonder if we take pride in being as intentionally unhealthy and overweight population?

What do you think we'd have to do to repair the free market system?

The problem is that our healthcare isn't really a free market. Doctors and hospitals are highly regulated. Laws also allow for ridiculously high settlements for doctors' mistakes, which in turn results in high malpractice insurance all medical professionals pay which in turn is passed on to you and/or your insurance company. Thanks to medicare, doctors are told by the government what fees they can charge. The health insurance industry is also regulated which in turn creates lots of bureaucratic mess. Now patients are reduced to diagnostic codes and referral numbers, and allowing a procedure depends more on that than Mr Smith's health.

People like to complain about pharmaceutical cost, but it's also a highly regulated industry. Everything from testing to retailing to safety is decided by regulations. Whether a drug is approved or not is a FDA decision, not one decided by the manufacturer or the marketplace.

Whether a food, food policy, supplement, or other natural thing is allowed into the market is decided by the federal government. The quality and sources of our food are decided by USDA and FDA.

Did you know a huge amount of tax money goes to subsidize cheap animal feed for factory farms (US Farm Bill) but almost nothing goes to those producing good food for HUMANS to eat?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't have a true capitalistic free system if the government has their tendrils in everything, controlling things and adding extra rules and costs.




Speaking of health insurance:
Here is an interesting story about a caring NY doctor who came up with an idea of how to keep health services really affordable for those without health insurance:
N.Y. doctor offers flat-rate care for uninsured | U.S. | Reuters
He is now in trouble for supposedly offering "insurance" or "fixing prices".

[liamona]

Originally Posted by funchy

Vaccinations aren't just to protect you, but they're also to control the spread of disease through a population.

I'm really surprised to see you defend vaccines, knowing your position against factory-farmed animals.

Vaccines are made with animal ingredients like porcine gelatin and bovine casein. In the latter case, they don't even use domestic cows to make them—they're often from countries "which the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has determined neither have nor are at risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)." (from the Infanrix vaccine package insert. See my other posts on this for other questionable vaccine ingredients).

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Haven't seen Sicko, but I do know many health care systems outside the US seem to work fairly well. I live in the Netherlands, where a basic package is provided for all for a base premium. Extra insurance can be bought too. The system works OK. Most problems are with long waiting lists for some procedures (not enough budget).

(...)

This has been researched a lot. In the Netherlands abortions are free. Lots of anti-conception are in the basic health insurance package too.

The common agreement is that abortions occur much less than in other countries - that it doesn't cost money apparently does not increase the average number of abortions. It helps that sex education is probably (what I hear from it) much better than in the US. Same goes for Scandinavian countries, Germany etc.

Thank for all this info, very interesting to know.

What's the aversion to taxes about?

I think they do a lot of harm (I actually wrote an entire essay about the harm taxes do; sometime I might post it or put it on my website), and are a form of extortion.

Sure, they're often used to pay for good, valuable services, but I don't think the ends justify the means, and they also pay for a lot of bad things like wars. I also think there has to be a way to pay for roads, schools, etc. that doesn't involve stealing everyone's money, threatening us and fining us or throwing us in jail if we don't pay up.

Taxes provide an efficient way to provide services and infrastructure for all (roads, education, government) that would be horribly more expensive if everyone had to do that himself or wouldn't even exist because of the huge costs (how many people could pay for a road by themselves?). Didn't follow the link, but what alternative would there be for taxes?

That's a hard question to answer. Two possibly good alternatives have occurred to me. They're very tentative and there are probably many possible problems that could arise with them that I haven't even thought of yet, but here they are:

1) Instead of stealing people's money through taxes, the government could just print more money to pay for anything needed. Then, to control inflation, anything voluntarily paid to the government (like money paid to the post office or on toll roads) could be taken out of circulation. Maybe this solution is too dependent on the government being thrifty, restrained, and not printing money like crazy, though.

2) When a new road or something needs to be paid for, maybe genuinely voluntary donations could be collected. If millions of people each voluntarily donate $1 each, then, that would already add up to millions of dollars, which should be enough to pay for lots of things we all need.

There are probably other possible alternatives as well, maybe someone else will think of some.

Nope. It's part of the cost of doing business. If the fees and taxes were much lower for all companies, prices would go down. If all companies pay similar fees and taxes, prices go up. Hasn't got to do with profitabilility as such, only with the size of the market (how many people can pay high prices). Profitablility is derived from the nett price the company charges for a product or service.

Example:
A product gives the company 5 profit per unit. Sales prices is 10. Fees and taxes are 20, so the consumer pays 30. If the fees or taxes increase or decrease it has no influence on the profit per unit for the company.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by funchy

You seem to be against having other peoples' beliefs being pushed on you, but at the time time you'd like to push women towards your belief on abortion.

No, I really don't like pushing anyone towards anything. I like persuading people to see my point of view, but not forcing them to accept anything, because "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

I'd rather genuinely win people over through the merit, logic, and/or compassion of my arguments, not boss them around. (Or, if I'm wrong, I'd like to be persuaded myself to the right point of view).

Why should women be forced away from having abortion as an option?

I don't know, I really dislike the idea of coercing anyone to do anything.

But taking away options is precisely what our current system of unfree health care does - the high cost of health care makes it so tons of procedures (including abortions) are simply not options for many people, due to cost.

So, since you're against free health care, and I'm still sort of leaning towards being in favor of free health care, that might actually mean you're inadvertently more in favor of people continuing to be deprived of the option of abortion than I am. So maybe you should be asking yourself your question. Zing!!

Take for example the ban on late term abortion. When ended up happening is if the fetus dies on its own on the 7th or 8th month, the distraught woman now has to carry the stillborn corpse inside her. Then she has to go through labor knowing it's dead. Why should someone force this on her?

I agree with you there. I'm not really familiar with the arguments for or against abortion, but, it seems pretty obvious that the main point of banning late-term abortion is to stop people from killing unborn babies. But if the fetus is already dead, then, removing it obviously won't kill it.

Vaccinations aren't just to protect you, but they're also to control the spread of disease through a population. If 20% of the people don't bother to get vaccinated against a highly-contagious infection, not only do they get sick/die, they keep the germ spreading.

OK, but if there are mandatory vaccinations, and the vaccines happen to be health-endangeringly flawed in some way, then 100% of the population (except the ones clever enough to get out of it somehow) will have to deal with the consequences of receiving a health-endangeringly flawed vaccination.

I hate to sound cynical, but Americans are kind of lax about their health.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that our healthcare isn't really a free market. Doctors and hospitals are highly regulated. Laws also allow for ridiculously high settlements for doctors' mistakes, which in turn results in high malpractice insurance all medical professionals pay which in turn is passed on to you and/or your insurance company. Thanks to medicare, doctors are told by the government what fees they can charge. The health insurance industry is also regulated which in turn creates lots of bureaucratic mess. Now patients are reduced to diagnostic codes and referral numbers, and allowing a procedure depends more on that than Mr Smith's health.

People like to complain about pharmaceutical cost, but it's also a highly regulated industry. Everything from testing to retailing to safety is decided by regulations. Whether a drug is approved or not is a FDA decision, not one decided by the manufacturer or the marketplace.

Whether a food, food policy, supplement, or other natural thing is allowed into the market is decided by the federal government. The quality and sources of our food are decided by USDA and FDA.

Did you know a huge amount of tax money goes to subsidize cheap animal feed for factory farms (US Farm Bill) but almost nothing goes to those producing good food for HUMANS to eat?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't have a true capitalistic free system if the government has their tendrils in everything, controlling things and adding extra rules and costs.

Very interesting, thanks for all that info. No, I didn't know about the subsidizing of cheap animal feed, nor about malpractice insurance (among other things), and my knowledge of a lot of the rest is quite vague as well. What a complicated mess of a system.

Speaking of health insurance:
Here is an interesting story about a caring NY doctor who came up with an idea of how to keep health services really affordable for those without health insurance:
N.Y. doctor offers flat-rate care for uninsured | U.S. | Reuters
He is now in trouble for supposedly offering "insurance" or "fixing prices".

Poor guy! I hope he gets out of trouble. Flat-rate care sounds like an excellent idea.

Best wishes,
Apollia