If the primary driver of insurance affordability is the rising costs of health care, how does insurance coverage for everyone address this issue?

Would this not be analogous to trying to overcome the burden of rising energy costs by having the federal government foot everyone’s gas/heating bills? In the end, all you do is increase the demand vis-à-vis restricted supply, thus furthering the initial problem of rising costs.

If the goal is to have coverage for all, why does it make sense to strip away each American’s freedom to choose their own health coverage just because a fraction of the US is not insured?

2/24/2008 2:13:37 PM

Health care for some, tiny American flags for others.

2/24/2008 2:58:43 PM

^
winnar

(don't blame me, I voted for kodos)



but seriously

Quote :

"If the goal is to have coverage for all, why does it make sense to strip away each American’s freedom to choose their own health coverage just because a fraction of the US is not insured?"

having "coverage for all" isn't the goal, it's the bait

closet socialists are exploiting the ignorant masses of free lunch seekers to further the destruction of the individual

duh

2/24/2008 3:20:29 PM

there is a difference between making it economically feasible to have health coverage for all and a socialized universal health care plan.

Most likely my employer will provide 100% coverage and i will be pissed if i have to pay to subsidize the health insurance for those who'd rather use their marginal income to buy hennesy, a $500 car payment, or [insert other non-necessity commodity here] than to buy health insurance.

2/24/2008 3:50:11 PM

I don’t think straight up socialism is the answer, but I also don’t think that the health care system couldn’t use some improvements from where it’s at now.

There are real improvements that can be made that aren’t just the government “footing the bill.” Spending money on a review and overhaul to improve efficiently, the infusion of more technology, a huge focus on preventive medicine, and yeah maybe a little footing of the bills in target areas. If we can get a shift towards having people in the doctors office before hand with the smaller bill that entails instead of at the ER later with a problem that’s become a lot worse and with a bill they can’t pay which just ends up being covered by others anyways, then maybe it would be worth while.

Universal Health Care can mean a lot of things and can be acted on in a number of ways. I’m starting to like Obama’s plan, atleast more than Hillary’s because of its focus on affordable care for all, then people can chose whether or not they want it, instead of mandated care for all like Hillary has.

I don't think any candidate's plan alone is perfect, but then again they won't be writing the legislation alone. Obama's closer to where I stand on this right now, and in politics its voting for the closest because you'll never find someone who matches you entirely.

2/24/2008 4:01:17 PM

Hunt,

Well, neither Hillary's or Obama's plans "strip away your freedom" to choose your own health coverage. You can choose from any private or government insurance plan. But under Hillary's plan you will be forced to have some type of coverage and under Obama's plan you will be "punished" if you wait until you're sick to purchase coverage. I suggest you read up some more before you criticize.

But, I do think you make a good point about increasing coverage means increasing demand for medical services.

I've addressed this in a few other posts, but the idea is that getting insurance to people who do not currently have it will help them afford regular check-ups and preventive medical care, which will help keep folks from getting diseases that are expensive to treat. Hillary and Obama argue that this will actually lower total health care spending and therefore lower total health care costs. Of course, all the empirical evidence suggests this is not the case.

This actually why I like McCain's plan better.

2/24/2008 5:52:37 PM

Quote :

"i will be pissed if i have to pay to subsidize the health insurance for those who'd rather use their marginal income to buy hennesy, a $500 car payment, or [insert other non-necessity commodity here] than to buy health insurance. "

You are already doing it, its just going to be paying alot more than you currently do.

2/24/2008 7:11:30 PM

Socks - I did not mention either Hillary's or Obama's plan, so I am a little confused why you assert I haven't read up on their plans.


One of the fundamental problems with our current system is the lack of price transparency. With a third-party paying most of the costs, there are no incentives in place for either consumers or suppliers of health care to be conscience of costs. Handing out insurance to all Americans does nothing to address the fundamental issue that led premiums to be unaffordable for many in the first place.

2/24/2008 8:27:06 PM

Hunt,

So the last paragraph of your post is in reference to? Nothing, I guess. I guess I'll just ignore it then and dive straight to your purely academic concern.

The problem is not the third-party (insurance) per se. After all, we don't see premiums spiraling out of reach in the market for car insurance. Consumers of health care services may have a "softer" incentive, but the insurance companies don't. They are VERY concerned with their bottom lines. So if health consumers are wanting "too much" medical services, why aren't the insurance companies saying no???

That's the question you should be asking. Because that's going to tell us where some of the reforms need to be made.

I recomend checking out "The Age of Diminished Expectations" by Paul Krugman (my favorite popular economist). It has a nice, quick discussion of this problem and some potential solutions.

2/24/2008 8:53:44 PM

You cannot equate car insurance, which has a low probability of payout, with health insurance, which has an almost-guaranteed probability of payout.

You can, however, extrapolate some characteristics of the car insurance industry that point to possible improvements in the health insurance industry. For one, car insurance is not nearly as regulated as health insurance. There is a government-induced lack of competition in health insurance. Each state dictates a laundry list of events that must be covered by all plans, which increases premiums (coverage for in-vitro fertilization and chiropractics are common and costly requirements). Additionally, states will not allow citizens to purchase insurance plans originated in other states, which decreases competition among insurers.

To answer your question…

Quote :

" “So if health consumers are wanting "too much" medical services, why aren't the insurance companies saying no???”"

They aren’t saying no because there is little incentive to do so. They simply offset rising costs with larger premiums, which brings me back to my original point - the problem is a lack of incentives on both the supply and demand-side of the equation to be mindful of costs. The crux of the third-party payer system.

[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2008 9:27:23 PM

The best thing the government can do for healthcare is to stop regulating it.

2/24/2008 9:54:31 PM

No, the best thing the gov't can do for healthcare is to take it back from the corporations. Hospitals and clinics used to be owned by the communities they serve. Now they are corporations. This new profit being tacked on is your rising health cost.

2/24/2008 9:57:40 PM

Wait.

Let me see if I got this right.

1) Thanks to insurance, people don't bear the majority of the cost of the medical services they consume.

2) As a result, they consume more medical services and the cost of those services go up.

3) Normally, an insurance company might respond to rising costs by switching to policies that paid less on these claims. However, medical insurance works differently. They are able to stay in business and pay for all these claims by...

4) Passing on the majority of the cost of medical services to the people that consume them through higher premiums.

And this isn't circular logic because?

2/24/2008 10:03:18 PM

Fine. If they city wants to build a hospital then go ahead. But for goodness sakes, drop the perverse regulations.

2/24/2008 10:04:30 PM

why dont we look at the root of the problem which is the price of health care vs. the price of insurance. we have a demand for health care and health care at a high price. now why is the price high? well that is because there isnt a large enough supply to bring the price down. it is simple economics that when supply is increased price falls. now why is the supply low? well think about how incredibly hard it is to get into med school these days. there are plenty of people out there who are smart enough and capable enough to be doctors but they cannot get into med school. if those people got in and became doctors there would be more of them and that would drop the price. also there would be more competition which would create better health care with more innovations all for the sake of profit.

2/24/2008 10:13:04 PM

Quote :

"The best thing the government can do for healthcare is to stop regulating it"

Where do you get such an assumption? What has deregulation ever improved for the consumer?

Like when Reagan said that we needed to stop regulating Savings and Loans in the 80's, then the industry ran itself into the ground, necessitating a $150 billion (in 1980's dollars) buyout by taxpayers

or when Bush Jr. let the mortgage lenders lend to everybody and prevented the government from regulating predatory lending practices, now we have millions of forclosures and the economy has been brought to the brink of recession because the industry could not regulate itself. Our incentives and buyouts will cost hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars

Long story short: when left to their own devices, economic interests will run their industry into the ground in the interest of maximizing short term economic gain. Only careful planning and regulation will keep the industry focus on long term stability and profitability. Deregulating healthcare would be a disaster for taxpayers and consumers.

2/24/2008 10:14:39 PM

yes, but when government regulation is actually the CAUSE of the high prices, then I'd say that some deregulation is called for.

you know, like how it takes years for drugs to get approved and you have to be buddy-buddy with the FDA to have a chance anyway... Gee, what do monopolies do? Oh yeah, JACK UP PRICES. Or what about how the gov't pays pennies on the dollar for everything healthcare related when it comes to medicare and medicaid, thus driving up everyone else's prices?

2/24/2008 10:19:43 PM

It takes years to get approval because there are tons of drugs out there that have very serious side effects. But to say that research and development costs are the primary agent of high drug costs is ridiculous. Drug companies usually spend several times what they spend in R&D for advertising and lobbying activities, usually used to stymy meaningful health care reform, protect long overdue patent expirations or prevent the government to use its purchasing power to buy bulk quantities to reduce cost.

Thats why a months worth of meds in Canada might cost $100 in Canada but $400 in the US, they don't allow health care lobbyists to undermine efforts to provide a functioning free market for prescription medicine.

[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2008 10:32:56 PM

and, don't you think that the health care lobby has a HUGE influence on the kinds of regulations being put on the industry already? As in, they make it impossible for anyone else to compete, thus creating an effective monopoly? durrr

2/24/2008 10:38:09 PM

Quote :

"What has deregulation ever improved for the consumer?"

Deregulation is supposed to lower costs by providing a functioning free market for a particular service. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Quote :

"Thats why a months worth of meds in Canada might cost $100 in Canada but $400 in the US, they don't allow health care lobbyists to undermine efforts to provide a functioning free market for prescription medicine."

Hmmm, sounds like you are arguing for deregulation here.



[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM. Reason : 2]

2/24/2008 11:01:25 PM

Quote :

" Or what about how the gov't pays pennies on the dollar for everything healthcare related when it comes to medicare and medicaid, thus driving up everyone else's prices? "

If the gov. didn't do this, then people would complain about gov. wasting money/stuffing doctor's coffers/something else. You "pennies on the dollar" statement is somewhat disingenuous anyway. According to the AAPS, the bigger problem is that the things covered by medicare and the methods of calculating the payout are too convoluted. http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-09-13-2006.php basically the gov. needs to simplify the process of paying for what's covered.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2005/12/its-not-worth-hassle.html some of the doctors would rather work for free than try to deal with the bureaucracy of the system.

2/24/2008 11:31:02 PM

Quote :

"you know, like how it takes years for drugs to get approved and you have to be buddy-buddy with the FDA to have a chance anyway... Gee, what do monopolies do? Oh yeah, JACK UP PRICES. Or what about how the gov't pays pennies on the dollar for everything healthcare related when it comes to medicare and medicaid, thus driving up everyone else's prices? "

2/25/2008 1:06:41 AM

Scuba Steve, regarding your earlier post on the deregulation of S&Ls, it was not outright deregulation that caused their insolvency. On the contrary, it was actually congress' regulations that kept many S&Ls in business.

Airline deregulation is a good case study of the ills of regulation and subsquent benefits of deregulation. In most cases, its the consumer who loses the most under regulation
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html

2/25/2008 6:54:49 AM

socks - there is an obvious difference in consumer behavior between paying insurance premiums and paying for the underlying health care. When paying premiums, you are not paying for a particular service for which there is an incentive to cut back on in the face of rising costs. When premiums rise, there is little one can do to mitigate the costs due to the fact the prices of the insurance premiums are not purely a function of supply and demand for insurance. Consuming health care, however, does allow for cost containment.

The only way we can effectively manage health care costs is to incentivise the consumer to be more conscience of costs. The only way this will happen is if the consumer bears more of the costs of the services they consumer. This would put the necessary incentives in place for the consumer to demand price transparency, which provides suppliers with the necessary incentives to assess costs and improve efficiency. As long as someone else pays the bills, neither will happen.

2/25/2008 7:29:45 AM

Hunt,

Quote :

"When paying premiums, you are not paying for a particular service for which there is an incentive to cut back on in the face of rising costs."

That's true. But you do pay co-payments for particular services and those do rise with the cost of those services. For example, your co-payment to visit your primary care physician is probably much lower than your co-payment to visit a specialist.

And don't forget about deductables--the amount the insurance customer must pay before their insurance even "kicks in". Last year, I barely surpassed my deductable, which means I paid for the vast majority of my health care expenses out of pocket.

Now, none of your arguments are actually specific to health insurance. There is no reason they should not apply to car insurance markets as well. There is a third party that bears the brunt of auto accidents, which reduces one's ability to drive safely and probably encourages the mechanic to raise his prices. Yet, we don't see the same situation of costs spiraling upward. The fact that health insurance companies make payments more frequently really has nothing to do with it. They should still be interested in protecting their bottom line.

Now, think about how the market for car insurance works. First, you can get a complete coverage plan that has all the bells and whistles and will pay you a lot of money for a huge variety of accidents. Obviously, you have to pay higher premiums to get this plan, which means that some people wont be able to afford it. That means there is a whole demographic of people that may want car insurance, but can't pay for the really really nice policies. So what do these insurance companies do? They offer plans that cover less. For example, you can get plans that only cover certain types of accidents, like collisions.

You seem to be thinking that there can only be one type of insurance. That everyone has to get complete coverage. But I don't see any reason why health insurance companies don't offer the medical equivilant of collision insurance.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 7:54 AM. Reason : ``]

2/25/2008 7:45:04 AM

the government forces me to buy car insurance.

yet I dont have to buy health insurance.

2/25/2008 8:15:53 AM

Dent,

^ Well that's a different argument all together. It sounds like you're saying that people are not interested in buying cheaper policies with less coverage, that they are totally uninterested in buying health insurance all together.

Is that correct?

2/25/2008 8:29:18 AM

im saying if the insurance companies could find a way to make it cost effective (huge profit) to have everyone on health insurance, like they have with car insurance, the government would force us to buy health insurance.

it just so happens its not cost effective.

2/25/2008 8:34:07 AM

Quote :

"One of the fundamental problems with our current system is the lack of price transparency. With a third-party paying most of the costs, there are no incentives in place for either consumers or suppliers of health care to be conscience of costs. Handing out insurance to all Americans does nothing to address the fundamental issue that led premiums to be unaffordable for many in the first place."

correct

Quote :

"Consumers of health care services may have a "softer" incentive, but the insurance companies don't. They are VERY concerned"

need some more sugar for coating that?

I mean, gimme a fucking break! Do you kiss your mom with that logic?

it doesn't matter how much one side has an incentive, they both need to have it, and to be freely self-balanced

Quote :

"The best thing the government can do for healthcare is to stop regulating it."

absolutely correct

it's funny how liberals will point out the wrongs of huge fascist corporations as being typical of every private corporation

"corporation" = a legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members

"corporation" ≠ multibillion$, international, centuries-old, big, mean, nasty, in-bed-with-politicians legal entity....

Quote :

"Hospitals and clinics used to be owned by the communities they serve. Now they are corporations."

communities can form locally owned and operated [corporate] hospitals (at least they used to?)

INCORPORATION IS NOT THE ENEMY PEOPLE!

IT'S CORPORATIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG, NOT LOCAL, AND TOOLS OF THE GOVERNMENT

SEE THE DIFFERENCE? PLEASE?

Quote :

"well think about how incredibly hard it is to get into med school these days. there are plenty of people out there who are smart enough and capable enough to be doctors but they cannot get into med school. if those people got in and became doctors there would be more of them and that would drop the price. also there would be more competition which would create better health care with more innovations all for the sake of profit."

exactly

the problem is the government-regulation caused monopoly of doctors and drugs

would it really be that bad if we legalized ms.cleo and snake oil?

could the problems associated with that possibly be worse than the status quo?

especially now that we have the internet (snopes, wiki, blogs, etc.)

Quote :

"Deregulating healthcare would be a disaster for taxpayers and consumers."

only if you did nothing to address the fascist monopoly over drugs and the practice of medicine that already exists

it sooooo funny how you liberals always seem to leave that out when deregulation bashing

2/25/2008 8:52:23 AM

Quote :

"Like when Reagan said that we needed to stop regulating Savings and Loans in the 80's, then the industry ran itself into the ground, necessitating a $150 billion (in 1980's dollars) buyout by taxpayers or when Bush Jr. let the mortgage lenders lend to everybody and prevented the government from regulating predatory lending practices, now we have millions of forclosures and the economy has been brought to the brink of recession because the industry could not regulate itself. Our incentives and buyouts will cost hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars "

Maybe it is the promise of these bailouts that allow these companies to act with seeming impunity. Perhaps we should let a fuck-up company fail.

2/25/2008 9:51:30 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps we should let a fuck-up company fail"

winner of the year

Quote :

"Perhaps we should let a fuck-up company fail"

winner of the year

Quote :

"Perhaps we should let a fuck-up company fail"

winner of the year

Quote :

"Perhaps we should let a fuck-up company fail"

winner of the year

Quote :

"Perhaps we should let a fuck-up company fail"

winner of the year

yes

yes

YES

a clear sign of corporate fascism is government provided immortality to corporations

I say allow companies to fail (the bigger the better)

I say overturn Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

I say establish the "death penalty" for corporations via community's democratic charter revocation

AND I'M A LIBERTARIAN

capitalism without failure is like religion without sin

2/25/2008 10:08:48 AM

A libertarian? You don't say.

2/25/2008 10:36:33 AM

yup

why not?

wanting bad companies to be allowed to fail (as opposed to relying on tax-supported bailouts) is very libertarian


wanting companies to remain small enough as to not be as powerful as entire nations?

perhaps not a classic libertarian view, but I think it is, because it threatens individual liberty


wanting Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad to be overturned?

I could care less what big L libertarians feel about this. corporations are not individuals. period


I read an article in reason magazine about charter revocation being some liberal tomfoolery

but again, until the rules are changed somehow to eliminate corporate oligarchy and fascism

people NEED some way of ABSOLUTELY KILLING an ENTIRE corporation, (and then to piss on it's grave)

this would hold corporations accountable to everyone they affect, not just their shareholders


if you think big L libertarians (read: love and defend huge corporations -- the bigger the better)

have any fucking chance at taking on the socialist evolution currently attacking and destroying the america we love

then you are off your fucking gourd



I mean, why do you think so many small L libertarians like much of what nader or kucinich has to say?

2/25/2008 10:56:48 AM

Quote :

"communities can form locally owned and operated [corporate] hospitals (at least they used to?) INCORPORATION IS NOT THE ENEMY PEOPLE! IT'S CORPORATIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG, NOT LOCAL, AND TOOLS OF THE GOVERNMENT"

this guy is onto something

2/25/2008 3:19:44 PM

Quote :

"I mean, why do you think so many small L libertarians like much of what nader or kucinich has to say? "

uhhhh

i don't think i've ever seen that

both of those dudes are wholly incompatible with libertarianism of any type or degree, as far as i--as a self-professed "small-L" libertarian--am concerned.

2/25/2008 3:31:21 PM

Reading massive amounts of medical blogs makes me think doctors are not in favor of government regulation of insurance or medical care

2/25/2008 6:51:39 PM

when i had my car wreck about 25 days ago i asked 3 doctors about it and it was evenly split...one was all for it...one kinda liked what we have now, and the last thought even what we have now kinda sucks



[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 7:43 PM. Reason : for the record, i'm for it when like 95 percent of the population is what i deem "healthy"]

2/25/2008 7:42:02 PM

Quote :

"But I don't see any reason why health insurance companies don't offer the medical equivalent of collision insurance. "

This is a very good point, although I believe its already been address...

Quote :

"Each state dictates a laundry list of events that must be covered by all plans, which increases premiums (coverage for in-vitro fertilization and chiropractics are common and costly requirements)."

There is little consumer choice in health care insurance because our government thinks it knows better than we do what should be covered in our plans. This is why it is paramount we move to a consumer-led health care system.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 7:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2008 7:56:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/26/dems.debate/index.html

Quote :

"CLEVELAND, Ohio (CNN) -- Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sparred with each other over negative campaigning, health care and free trade Tuesday, a week before key primaries in Texas and Ohio. Those contests could either effectively seal the nomination for Obama or throw the contest wide open again with a strong Clinton performance."

Quote :

"As in many of their debates, health care was a prime focus, with the first 16 minutes of the debate devoted to it. The two staked out familiar themes -- Clinton saying her plan would guarantee health coverage for all Americans and Obama touting a plan he says would make it affordable for everyone but not require them to buy it if they don't want it."

2/27/2008 6:40:56 AM

I agree with Hunt. The main problem is that the majority of people are ignorant to thier own plans and have no decisions about what they get.

Health ins does have a comprehensive policy. Its usually a no deduct. copay plan and is expensive. Most people have moved to a deductible. What auto insurances dont have a is a comprehensive policy. They dont offer a plan that covers tune-ups, tires, gas, etc. Imagine how expensive that would be. Auto services also arent FORCED to fix your car for free. Thus reducing the need to have auto ins.

Hillary is right, if you are going to have a national plan you have to collect the money from everyone. No opting out. If you do allow people to choose, alot simply wont buy it no matter how cheap it is bc they feel they wont need it. Then they will get in an accident and demand service whihc thye wont pay for...just like now. How do I know? Because we have some of the most irresponsible people in this country. We have people who are GIVEN free ins, who wont take thier kids to the doctor. You are telling me that they will now purchase ins? Its not going to happen.

We should allow hospital ERs to triage patients and turn some away.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2008 9:34:37 AM

Quote :

"We should allow hospital ERs to triage patients and turn some away."

exactly

people use the fact that ERs are FORCED to not turn people away to justify additional growth to the welfare state

forgetting that this FORCE is unjust in the first place, therefore not providing an objective justification

you wanna know another reason why insurance is so expensive?

two words: jesica santillan

it's not enough that you unsustainable free-lunch-chasing liberal fucktards want health care for americans

you wanna give it to EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE FUCKING PLANET WHO CAN MANAGE TO BE SMUGGLED IN

FUCK YOU

FUCK YOU

WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE TAXPAYER OR COMPULSORY INSURANCE SUPPORTED CARE FOR 6 BILLION PEOPLE

FUCK YOU AND YOUR BLEEDING FUCKING HEARTS

YOU WILL NOT WIN

AMERICA #1

2/27/2008 10:09:34 AM