Jump to content
Ken, I do not completely disagree with your last post, however healthcare is not a normal capitalistic market because our society has long determined that poor people, the elderly and some poor schmo that got broad sided and cannot tell us who he is all receive care.
The health care market place will never be the marketplace that you desire unless you also decide that just like gasoline or bananas, No money = No product. This will have the added effect of letting people that cannot afford proper care either learn to do without or die without care just like when you cannot afford gasoline, your gas powered vehicles do not operate.
I can not see a solution that provides the benefit of health care to the indigent/elderly and still maintains a true capitalistic marketplace. Please try to explain at length how we can provide these kinds of services to those in need without adopting some sort socialized health care. The ACA tried to marry these two mandates together without much success, how would you do it differently?
No, I do not believe the conservative talking points about torte reform and coverage across state lines will even make a dent.
Ken, your examples of free market capitalism do not apply to the Health Care market for many reasons. First and foremost is that your insurance company tells you who the preferred provider is, and strengthen that preference with specialized pricing that you cannot get as an individual without having that particular insurance. Furthermore, different insurance companies negotiate different pricing for the same exact service.
Helth Care providers do not scale their efforts based on the size of the market, but each of them insists that this market must have all the best technology available. That is why we see the MRI in Yampa Valley costing over $2500 but going to the Front Range can get you the same exact test for $450. If health care was truly a capitalistic endeavor, those price discrepancies would not stand up for long.
How about the marvelous Colorado insurance market which refuses to allow Western Slope citizens to access the healthcare markets in Boulder/Denver. I would happily pay the insurance rates on the Front Range if the restriction was that I had to use Doctors there but do to profitability in the insurance market, that decision is not allowed.
Finally is the insurance companies desire to break citizens into ever smaller groups. Why, because the smaller the group size is, the bigger the risk factor is meaning they can charge higher premiums. If they were required to measure the risk accross their entire pool of insured customers instead of breaking them into ever smaller groups, premiums would drop like a rock.
All of this proves that insurance and healthcare delivery do not respond to normal capitalistic inputs and controls, but must be regulated. If Healthcare was forced into a normal business model, it would look more like the existing market for things like Chriopractic, Lasics, or other health related services not covered by insurance. Taking the AMA requirements out of treatment for things like wellness care, basic checkups and inoculations and making those services completely paid out of pocket would be a good start. Your analogy of the auto insurance market is actually a good example IMO.
Ken, in general I agree with you assessment here with one great big large caveat when it comes to healthcare. Healthcare is anything but a capitalistic market. The Gov't has tinkered with multiple strategies over the years to try and get citizens to purchase or be covered by health insurance. Whether it is employer regulations, VA, VNA, medicaid, medicare or the laws that say hospitals must provide care to those that cannot afford it, the Governments fingers are weighting the scale in every direction.
If there was a "True" capitalistic Health Care delivery model, there would be a sidewalk outside of each hospital with potential patients begging for care or money and dying right there on that sidewalk because they could not afford to pay. The alternate solution would be to stuff them all into a run down government run facility with inadequate resources.
Given that Health Insurance and Care are already "Socialized" to a large extent it seems to me that your proposed solution would be to deny care to anyone that cannot afford it. Tell me how the outcome would be different because I do not see that path. Would you take the entire system apart and get rid of Medicare/Medicaid?
Ken, how then do you propose to fix the current problems in the health insurance and delivery systems. Under both the old and current systems, if someone shows up at the emergency room without the ability to pay, each and every one of us subsidizes the cost of that care in our premiums and healthcare costs.
As a self-employed two time cancer survivor, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the previous system was broken beyond repair. While I am not a fan of what has taken place since the ACA was implemented, it is hard to argue with the "FACT" that insurance rates are rising more slowly now than they were in the 90's and early 2000's. This is especially true in the individual and small business markets.
Yes, I received insurance company letters increasing my premiums over 500% in 1998 and when the insurance company was told those increases were not allowed by law, they sent me another letter increasing my premiums by 40% per year for 7 full years. I still have a copy of both letters. At the time, I had been cancer free for almost 15 years. This was long before the ACA was discussed or implemented so please do not tell me that insurance costs were stable prior to the ACA.
What would you propose to control costs?
I have contacted my representatives on this issue:
Cory Gardner has failed to respond to any correspondence I have ever sent him via snail mail or email. Zero, Zip, Nadda from my representative.
Scott Tipton - Has returned Republican Platitudes and talking points even when asked followup questions. I could have typed his responses from the RNC website.
Scott Bennett - Repllied to my email and intelligently answered followup questions.
DMB - Responded to my email. encouraged me to attend a meeting at Butcherknife brewery and gave me her personal cell phone number for further conversations.
If anyone wants to pay $50 to hear Carly Fiorina speak, more power to them. Enjoy yourself and have a nice time.
Jerry, in this case I was asking why Trump the adulterer is better than the adulterers wife. I believe I understand why you dislike Bill Clinton, but I do not understand why you do not hold Trump to the same standards.
PS. There is not a candidate on the board I like. Kinda like being sick to your stomach and having diarrhea at the same time. Which one would you rather clean up after?
So being the adulterer is better than being the adulterers wife Jerry?
17 In the instructions for the questionnaire, Ms. Bantle was informed by the Sheriff’s Office that, “the information you supply and any information obtained by the agency through the
background investigation is held in complete confidentiality and, at no time, will any portion of the background investigation be released to any person other than those authorized by law to receive such information.”
It would seem to me that this area of the personnel documents were violated , but I would have to know quite a few more details before forming a complete opinion.
Dan I agree that both sides do it. That does not make it acceptable.
The Federal Court System is currently authorized to have 860 Judges with 9 Scotus Appointments, 167 Regional Appeals Justices, 12 Federal Appeals Justices and 663 District Judges. RIight this second there are 84 vacant positions that Congress has approved and the Justice Department claims are badly needed yet Congress sits on their hands and refuses to confirm anyone.
Their actions are a deliberate attempt to make sure that the Judicial system does not function properly. The current SCOTUS fiasco is just icing on a $&^! Sunday.
Quoted From the Federal Bar Association:
"The rising number of judicial vacancies prevents the prompt and timely administration of justice in the federal courts–where FBA members practice. This is causing unnecessary hardship and increased costs on individuals and businesses with lawsuits pending in the federal courts.
The judicial vacancies problem has reached crisis point with more than one-third of the current 103 vacancies in the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the District Courts have existed for at least 18 months. The Judicial Conference, the policy making body of the federal judiciary, has designated these vacancies as “judicial emergencies.”
Last login: Monday, May 16, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |