Myths on healthcare
 

I got this letter from White House.
I will put in several posts, because of forum character limitations.

I sense frequent on-going bailouts of the insurance companies if this legislation takes hold.

Thats bailout with your tax dollars, or through printing new dollars and spending them. Each option will diminish your purchasing power

Study health economics. Be informed first. Health economics is one of the most complex branches of economy, because rules that apply to normal markets do not apply there.
Normal people judge health as if it was a normal market and this is where they make misjudgment.
Your comments now are not very informed.

Health companies do not need a bailout. American citizens do.

When the government gets in bed with the insurance companies and they are no longer able to turn a profit, then the insurance companies will be requesting funds with the excuse that government put them in that position. Government will have no option but to bailout or nationalize the failing companies then.

It is without question what is going to happen if the insurance companies get nerfed like that.

Did you read the bill that Ar81 so carefully presented?

@ar81 - 90% of economists do not understand economics. My husband majored in economics in college. Since then, he has read hundreds of books on economics and history in order to understand markets better and make better decisions about how to invest our money. His view: all macro economics he learned in college was pure rubbish.

The Keynesian view is convenient for politicians because it encourages more government power and intervention in the economy and people's lives. But Keynesian economics doesn't work, even if most economists believe in it. It's full of wooly-headed thinking, assumptions, and fallacies. It gave the United States a 15-year Great Depression.

Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?? No? That's because it didn't last. The market crashed in Nov 1920 and prices dropped 40%. It was as bad or worse than the crash in 1929. Warren Harding, the president at the time, admitted that he knew nothing about economics and did nothing. No bailouts, no stimulus packages, no New Deals, no new government programs.... nothing. The economy corrected itself, and within 9 months, it had fully recovered.

You keep claiming that the healthcare industry is somehow different than other markets. How? Why? In all the reading that I have done, I have seen no evidence of that, other than it endures more government interference than the average industry. It is precisely that governmental interferences that has the problems we have with the healthcare industry.

We don't need more government interference. We don't need yet another government program. We would all be better off with less, MUCH LESS, government in our lives and business. (Frankly, I'd prefer to live in a world with no government, where the only laws are those that prohibit aggression against my person and property.)

---------------------

A note about your signature: How on earth is "embracing criticism" freedom? The words sound nice, but the meaning in this context is so fuzzy it makes no sense to me... at all. Freedom is the absence of coercion, the absence of aggression against a person and his/her property.

Health care is TOTALLY different!

Auto Industry: If prices are right, and you need a car, you can choose to buy one or not. You can stick with bus or bicycle if you prefer to hang on to your money. Competition is extensive.

Electronics: Even if you have a computer, you might choose to upgrade because the new ones are faster or have more capacity. You can also choose to use the computer at the local library instead of buying and constantly upgrading. Competition is extensive.

Washing Machines: New ones use less water and less power. You might upgrade to take advantage of this, or you can choose to keep your old, dependable, machine. Some people still wash their own clothes, and in many areas there are local laundromats or women who will do your wash for you. There is lots of competition over price and capacity.

Clothing: Now, you can't choose not to wear clothing in most areas. And, to hold down a job, you need appropriate clothing. But, you can buy at a high end store, or a discount store. You can buy knockoffs or you can buy on line. There is extensive competition.

Food: You don't even have to buy food at a store if you grow your own and can or jar it. There are still places where you can fish or grow your own cattle or pigs, chickens or goats for your family. But, if you do choose to buy food, there are many, many choices and you can buy whole grains and beans and watermelon to stay inexpensive, or you can go high end and buy fresh seafood and grass-raised beef. Or, if you watch commercials, you might end up buying Beefaroni and Campbell's Soup. There is lots of choice.

Health care: If you are in a car accident, the police will take you to the hospital. You have no choice to opt-out or opt-in and you can't choose your hospital. If you develop TB, you have no choice to opt-out. You are a public risk, and you will have to partake in a TB program. If you are hurt on the job and can't work, you will have to use Workman's Comp Insurance for health care to get better so that you can return to work. They will not let you just stay home to recover. To do so is to risk loosing your job. When it's time for your children to start school, they will need to show that they have been vaccinated in order to protect the other children. If your child has asthma, diabetes or cancer or a tumor, you will need to get him/her treatment because to ignore this is to put your child's life at risk. And, do I need to talk about the Staph infections that eat away at your flesh? And, what about the diseases that are caused by your working conditions, from a mine or from working with heavy metals or dust or heat or asbestos or PCB's? And, what about the soldiers who worked with the depleted uranium?

Do you see, Kaspian? Health care is only a choice if you're talking about a cold. You can treat that or not. It's up to you. But when we're talking about more serious conditions, you really don't have a choice.

And, when we're talking about soldiers, or the victims of war or terrorism, where is their choice?

And, competition does not exist in small, rural areas. There are few doctors and there is generally only one hospital within reach.

So, health care is NOTHING like other industries.

Hospitals is still a service, a product if you will :) Government invovlement in this sector will diminsh quality over time, as it has everywhere else it is involved.

I know people think healtcare is right because it heals us. But what about food and water? That keeps us alive. Then that should be a right too, something everyone else has to provide for everyone else.

But 1 man cannot exist for the benefit of the next man. Everyone has to exist for them selves. They can provide for others through charity. But setting up rules like healthcare is a right and everyone has to pay for it for everyone is not going to work. There are many articles and books out there, history has also shown that whenever government gets invovled in the economy, it has undesirable consequences. So thats not the way you want to go.

Food is a good comparison with health care, as far as it being a "necessity".
Yes, you can grow your own food, but doing so takes months.
If you are suddenly left with no access to food, you would starve before you could grow your own.

The same thing applies to health care, as you have pointed out.
You theoretically could learn to treat yourself for injuries, but you'd die before you could.

Why then, is food relatively cheap and plentiful while health care is expensive? Because government regulations and mandates have driven up administration costs, licensing has decreased the supply of doctors, and the FDA's rules have decreased the supply of medicine.

Health care may be different economically when it comes to the conditions the market works under, but it can NEVER be different when it comes to the economic rules it follows. All economies follow the same rules, otherwise the economic model would be faulty. When you increase costs of production and decrease supply, the price of the product or service increases and the quantity supplied decreases.

Ugh.. for a forum called personal development for SMART people there are some dumb ideas circulating about nationalized health care. (Not just trying beating on WelfareStateChild here, it just happens to be right there.)

It honestly sounds like you'd rather live in a small village somewhere in the middle of nowhere with no services, no nothing.

Three words for you: National Health Service. It works. I don't understand the problem some people have with getting this. IT WORKS!

How it works is simple. EVERYONE is a member. EVERYONE WHO WORKS pays a SMALL insurance premium to the government so ANYONE can get the treatment they NEED. EVERYONE can expect basic medical care at NO COST at point of treatment, as and when they need it. There is NO OPTING OUT. Obviously the NHS can't pay for advanced treatments but it will do what is needed to keep you alive. The rest is up to you. If you want to take out extra health insurance you are free to. You can generally expect a higher standard of care if you do and access to really cutting edge treatments regardless of who you are.

More government intervention in the healthcare sector will only further drive up costs. Disable the power government currently have here, and you will see healthcare becomming abundant again.

Access to food and water is also a right. That's why people who have no money get food stamps to get food.

At the point where not everyone has access to health care, food or water the government has to intervene.
Every model is faulty. Especially economic models.

Even Austrian economists don't have models that allow them to accuaretly predict economic events.
Economics isn't a science that has accurate models in the same way as physics.
There two different kinds of costs.
1) The cost to develop a new treatments.
2) The cost to treat people.
If you price everything at 2), no business has money to pay for 1). Pharma is an industry in which 1) costs companies more than 2).
Actually food prices are set by government intervention in the US and in Europe, I therefore don't see that point.

Government controls food prices by spending billions of dollars in the US but doesn't control health care prices at the moment.

The government gives subsidies to farmers to get them to produce cheap food and enough food to feed everyone.
The government gives foodstemps to everyone who can't afford food.

That's what you libertarians call a free market?

If you would spent that kind of government money that you spend on farming subsidies additionally on health research I would be fine with getting rid of patents.

Health care is not a service that you can choose to not buy. A restaurant is a service. You can go in or not....

I explained that people can still get food and water at no cost -- depending of course on where you live....

There were some visitors from Canada in NYC. The children were appalled at the homelessness..... The children have clear visions and are not affected by political rant, talking points or philosophy. They see that it is not right and not good for people to be homeless.

What's this "drive up costs" stuff. Chase said the same thing in a letter. They said government drove up costs of houses. That's not so. Everytime the taxes on the upper 10% get lowered, housing prices go up because of the bubble the new investments cause.

And, as you have been pointing out, there's been plenty of government intervention already. I still pay only a little more for my doctors than my parents paid 50 years ago.... So costs have not gone up. Aspirin is still about the same, as are basic cold remedys.

New and expensive drugs are invented all the time, most of which in my experience, are not necessary. The best treatment for diabetes is still insulin. The best treatment for high blood pressure is still diet-exercise-meditation.

Oh, almost forgot. When the President and everyone else talk about increasing health costs, they are looking at the package. But, the part of the package that increases 30% a year, is health INSURANCE, not health care.

And, since most of the world, with more government involvement pays half of what the US pays, I think someone has started a rumor that has taken wings. -- It has no basis in fact! So stop it.

Let's try to stick to the truth....

Ok lets try and be truthful. What do congressmen, senators and presidents get out of promoting more government intervention? Would they mispresent the truth in order to push thru an agenda?

Have anyone in government, affiliated advisors ever lied to push thru an agenda?

Do you know enough about economics for that matter, to support these kinds of violent policies with not even an exit strategy?

Lets also try and be reasonable. Why are things any different with this healthcare reform, the guys on the pro-side of it and the Iraq war and the guys on the Pro-side of that?


Its a question of power, taxes and just making a living for guys in government. Its not about virtue, truth and reason, it has never been. Just look at history.

It might give you warm fuzzies to think that every person has a "right" to food, water, shelter, and medical care. However, if providing those things to those people who are not making enough money (for whatever reason) requires taking the money (ei: through taxes/theft) of someone who earned it honestly, they cannot be considered universal rights.

Restated: if some so-called "right" requires violating someone else's person or using coercion (or threat of force) to take their rightfully earned property in order to be honored, it is *NOT* a right.


@chrisrushton - You seem to think that in a world without government we wouldn't have services. If there is a demand for a service, and some person (like you!) could make money providing it, some entrepreneur (like you!) would start a new business providing that service. We wouldn't exist in some sort of backward, pre-industrial backwater; we'd have many companies competing with each other to provide goods and services. Think what would happen to the price of healthcare services if that industry were more like the computer industry, where there's lots of competition and CPUs keep getting faster, video cards get more more advanced, and computers are becoming more and more powerful for the same (or a lower) price.

All products and services could be as competitive as the computer hardware industry. We'd have lots and lots of options, both in price and quality, in all kinds of products and services, even those currently provided by government theft.

Why is the right of property ownership more important than the right to life?

Gabo, please answer in specifics:
Do you believe that government has less to do with food than with medicine? What about the subsidies to the farmers? What about the F in FDA are you ignoring?

Where do you see a decrease in doctors? We have plenty in the north east.....

People on these posts keep saying Frankly, I don't see how that applies. Family MD's are in supply and their prices/costs are about the same as they were 50 years ago.

What I see has and is increasing astronomically is medical insurance.

How about this for a rule:
We have seen that with Health Insurance, and with the Internet. We have seen that with bottled water and with cell phones and with pharma....

They get nothing out of pushing through a public health insurance. -- What do you think they get out of it?

Of course.

You keep saying "violent". I listened to the link you made before and don't understand how a public health option, a voluntary option that is paid for only by the subscribers, is violent. You have to be more specific. It is not forced, it is voluntary.

This reform was requested by the voters. The Iraq war was promoted by a man whose father narrowly escaped a "hit man" sent by Sadaam Hussain, and another man whose former agency went from close to bankruptcy to being very, very well off.

No one is getting any money from anywhere by promoting this health program. In fact, it's probably costing them money.


Your point? You and others have been saying that it's good to be selfish. Now you want me to argue against that?

More power, and an excuse to bailout their insurance friends in the future. Insurance companies are obviously struggling today, which is why we get these horror stories of turned down customers. Do you think they have it any easier in the future under such regulations? Those regulations will only make it easier for insurance companies because it removes a great deal of their responsiblity. You can be sure they will come crying to government as GM did, for a bailout in the future if such things happens. You do not want government and buisness to melt together, and form some kind of economic fascism where the consumer is cornered. He does not want to purchase the product offered, then the company should go bankrupt, but instead it comes crying to government and gets a hold of the taxes this very consumer has been stripped off of. And the big insurance company CEO wins.


There is nothing voluntary about forcing insurance companies to do the list of things AR81 provided in the op.


Voters. Does a mob really know whats good for themselves? Did the mob voting Hitler into power know what was comming? Some did, but mob didnt care.


Selfishness is a part of all, we need to devise a system that rewards it. That makes selfishess contribute to society. Traditional capitalism came close, but the idea there is still to have a centralised power. This centralised power is what turns human selffishness to do evil stuff. The monopoly on the iniation of force - which is what the government is, a bunch of individuals with a monopoly on the initiation of force, i will find a tape of Obama lecturing us that fact if you want - Anyway, that kind of power does not keep criminals out of society, it heavily draws them in, to use this power.

More voluntary approaches to society has to be explored, such as anarcho-capitalism.

Even in this depression/recession they just posted record profits. Please, argue if you want, but please try to connect to a fact once in a while.

This is where market forces will come into effect. The insurance companies that want to survive will have to offer fair service.

I love the way you make stuff up.... Have you thought about writing fiction?




- What? You don't think they should provide the service that people are buying? Don't go into the business.




What are you suggesting here? Please, be specific. I thought you were the one saying that people can do very well without a government? How can people be good and people be bad?




Can you give one example here? Henry Ford? Thomas Edison? Jesse James? How about Bernie Madoff? Are you saying that selfishness is always good and should always be rewarded?


How about the centralized power of IBM, FORD, GM, General Electric, Standard Oil? Are these all bad, or all good?

They no longer have a monopoly on force. There are now private armies that you, or anyone else with enough money, can buy. Blackwater is one....


Members of Government are one of many. In the US, we have a "Balance of Power" which is sometimes somewhat compromised, but basically it works. The Executive Branch cannot make laws or wage war without the consent of Congress. Congress cannot make laws without the approval of the Senate and the signature of the Executive. The Supreme Court is not an elected body because they are the Judges of all the other branches. They need to be above the need to raise "re-election" money. Therefore, US government officials, even the President, actually has less autonomy that Bill Gates. [/QUOTE]


I like our system when it's working well....

Why don't you explain anarcho-capitalism in another thread?

I was basing the statement on the hypothesis, that insurance companies have been dishonoring their contracts. It is the last resort i believe, before a bankruptcy. A very bad call though because it makes doing buisness in the future harder.

However, if the insurance companies have been honoring their contracts, and at the point of renewal the insurance company found it untenable to resume buisness then this company would be in its every right to do so. Then it makes sense they would be earning money.

Where you go wrong i think, is the belief that insurance companies can insure you regardless. But because a persons health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. You have been misleaded if you believe when you sign up with an insurance company and pay x amount each month you are set for life, thats not what insurance is.

I will repeat myself. The criterias government sets up makes it impossible for insurance companies to survive, because they force insurance companies to participate in "overinsuring".


You have to consider all the different scenarios. As Henry Hazlitt puts it;
"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immidiate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for the one group but for all groups."

There is a posibility that forcing insurance companies to insure the uninsurable will lead them to eventually operate at a loss, which, since government has been making the decisions for the companies, will lead to government eventually bailing them out.



The regulation is not about making insurance companes honor their contracts, companies have been doing that for years. It is about changing the role of insurance companies from measuring risks, to simply just cover anyone who gets ill. Unsustainable situation. Without getting into too much detail, that is basically subsidizing the ill and unhealthy which means you get more of it.



People will vote for someone elses money to be spent on themselves. So why give them the oppertunity?


Selfishness is constant, its part of us all. Its why creating an institution that can control other people is a bad idea.

Since companies under free market conditions draw their power from the consumer, it is their number 1 priority to satisfy him/her.

I still dont have the option to not pay taxes. If i refuse to pay, they will keep escalating violence used against me until i am in jail or dead.

Please, don't just make things up because you think that's the way that life ought to be. The insurance companies in America rescind people's contracts as soon as the person gets sick -- unless they are part of a large enough group that your group has clout with them. If you are an individual, and you develop breast cancer or high blood pressure, they cut you off -- in spite of what their contract says!

No one is forcing insurance companies to insure anyone. When their actuarial tables say that someone is a bad risk either because of high blood pressure or breast cancer, no one makes them insure you.

This is not at all true in the US that government is making life difficult for insurance companies. I repeat, private insurance companies, in June, reported record earnings. They are doing just fine. No one is making them insure anything. They make the deals and they make the contracts. They are happy to take in as many premiums as they can.

Where the consumer has a problem, is when they take your premiums for 10 or more years, and when you get sick, they cut you off. -- Don't you think that this is a little bit unethical? Just a tiny bit? They are in the risk business, and should honor their contracts.


Look, there are more healthy people in the US than unhealthy people. This is a large country. The insurance companies have been making record profits. What does that mean? That means that there are more healthy people in the system than unhealthy people. They are in the risk business.

If they have a contract with a business, to insure ALL their employees, then they need to honor that contract.

No one is forcing them to write those contracts. It's up to them. But the new rules won't let them kick people out for getting sick, and it won't let them exclude anyone who has a previous condition. Too bad. If they don't want to write business to insure all of IBM or all of Citibank, they don't have to. But if they do write that contract, the government will make them keep to their contract from now on.




I thought that you thought that people are good, and will operate from a good motive. Are you now rescinding that and saying that people are basically thieves?

Even if you are saying that, it doesn't matter. The US health reform bill is not for national health care. The public option is a fair cost health insurance that those who wish can buy into. We assume that young people, (who can't afford more expensive insurance,) other people who have changed jobs and can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, those who have witnessed the way the private insurance companies indescriminately cut people off, and those who work for small companies that can't get affordable insurance because they don't have a large enough group to make the private insurance companies give them a fair price, are the ones who will join.

We are not talking about free insurance, and we're not talking about anyone else paying for you. Stop saying that. It has nothing to do with this bill.




So, let's not do that. We're not talking about controlling people.


That's what I'm talking about. The private companies are not doing that, so the populace has asked their representatives in government to come up with a solution.


Look, are you self employed?

In the US, if you are employed, your employer with holds your taxes based on a table. If you have deductions, you get money back.

If you don't have deductions, you don't. Unless you are very wealthy with your own company or you live on investments you're not going to be able to refuse to pay. So are you very wealthy? Spend a little money on a lawyer and he'll find deductions for you....

I find it strange that you object to taxes. Didn't you, a little while ago, suggest that a group of several million people ought to be able to get their roads fixed and their bridges mended? Well, we did figure a way. We pay taxes to a government that takes care of those things. We each pay a little bit, and all those things are taken care of....

If you don't like that way, then go somewhere else.... Oh, yeah, you are somewhere else....

I was trying to find a resonable explanation for your dissatisfaction with the insurance companies. But it turns out it is completely ilegitimate.
I take it contracts come up for renewal every once in a while. This is where you have the option to opt out, but the same goes for the insurance company. What is the problem?

Instead of putting this blind trust on the insurance company, to insure you always and forever against every ilness, the money is better spent in a savings account. You know, for unforseeable events such as you or a relative falling ill.

But wait, healthcare is very expensive in america i hear. So saving up on your own, even though your on the middle class is just not feesable. Why dont you spend some time and energy figuring out why? It hasnt always been like that.


Instead of putting this blind trust on the insurance company, the money is better spent in a savings account. You know, for unforseeable events such as you or a relative falling ill.


They are in the risk measuring buisness.
If an insurance company do not wish to take you as their customer - i take it your motive is to get protection because you recognise the expensive nature of healthcare in the US - then instead of being upset and focusing your time and energy on bashing the company for not taking you, you should find out why healthcare has become so expensive. There are ways suggested to make healthcare affordable again, you should start by taking a look in the "REAL healthcare reform" thread, it could set you of on an impressive journey.


Im saying people will want to do less for more. And that in a society with a tool to legitimately take other peoples property, it will be used for this.


I can already imagine how people will come to this mystical insurance savior in droves. It sounds like nothing but a pyramid scheme, which will build up huge liabilities like medicare and medicaid.
Those kinds of policies is what is painting a wrong picture of what insurance companies are supposed to do. It also diverts attention from the real problem which is rediculous prices on healthcare, courtesy of government.


From the second post in this thread:
"# Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick."

That is controlling people.


The populace has been mislead, and are asking the guys that created the problem to fix it, which inevitably will lead to other problems which can then be "fixed". Its the perfect crime.


Since roads and bridges are paid for by you and me, it would be entirely possible without the government.