Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469534)

you can't argue with a guy who feels school desegregation ended in the 50s.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469536)

On civil rights, I'm not sure what you mean. Apparently you think lynching is a good thing, or it's okay to support it if you're just a senator.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469538)

Given your pro-lynching stance, I'm not surprised.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 469528)

What you're describing is a failure of regulation. Every insurer has the incentive to play games with coverage "after the fact." Only the wealthiest individuals and companies can afford to fight with insurance companies once they have a claim. Everyone else needs to rely on regulators.

I will defer to RT on this one, but I think that no one who actually understands health policy, including the insurers, wants a system where people pay out of pocket for preventative care, because people then predictably do not get enough preventative care and have worse health later, which is bad for them and bad for everyone else. For this reason, I believe most insurers who are in it for the long haul prefer to cover preventative care. The ones who don't are worry that the insured is going to drop the coverage before they get sick. Running the system on that model is not in the national interest, obviously.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 469541)

I'm thinking in terms of the broader economy. Lowering costs on the front end by cutting down on overuse and truly bending the unit price curve (which any businessperson who's seen any form of TPA operate will tell you can only be achieved with an out of pocket structure) is best over the long haul. I don't care what insurers, health care specialists, or lazy Americans like, want, or think. HC costs eat money better spent elsewhere. The fix for that isn't giving more people the right to consume health care subsidized by others. It is to suck money out of health care, which will incentivize fewer providers to encourage needless tests and overuse.

Take away the credit card, make people feel the pain of payment, and watch the merry-go-round of endless, expensive tests and overprovision/overconsumption end.

HC needs to shrink, not expand.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469542)

your theories live in the same world where communism works- where people can be trusted to make intelligent decisions. you ignore the reality of the emotionally and economically crippled, the slackers, etc. In a world where your theory would work, so would single payer.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 469527)

Of course the insurance companies don't want it. That's the best indication it's a worthwhile, cost-saving approach. And the fact that a lot of McRepublicans want to preach about free markets while remaining too lazy to take control of their own health care is hardly persuasive.

I don't want universal coverage for the same reason you shouldn't - a waterfall of new patients competing for care. We've a shortage of doctors already. Would you prefer to have a hire a concierge practice, or have your already stressed physician pushed to see a dozen more patients per day? You provide services, and so you understand - more bodies to service, lower quality of service. Call me selfish, but I want a doc who has the time to actually pay attention to what he/she is doing.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469567)

I'm not worried about meaningful degradation of the quality of care.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 469541)

I'm thinking in terms of the broader economy. Lowering costs on the front end by cutting down on overuse and truly bending the unit price curve (which any businessperson who's seen any form of TPA operate will tell you can only be achieved with an out of pocket structure) is best over the long haul. I don't care what insurers, health care specialists, or lazy Americans like, want, or think. HC costs eat money better spent elsewhere. The fix for that isn't giving more people the right to consume health care subsidized by others. It is to suck money out of health care, which will incentivize fewer providers to encourage needless tests and overuse.

Take away the credit card, make people feel the pain of payment, and watch the merry-go-round of endless, expensive tests and overprovision/overconsumption end.

HC needs to shrink, not expand.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469568)

you also have nothing to live for....

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469570)

Have another drink.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469569)

What would a businessman in France say?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469571)

hate is not a family value

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 469566)

"For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1847)

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469567)

First if all, I'm not as selfish as you. I don't fear giving up a little for others to benefit. And I'm not worried about meaningful degradation of the quality of care.