TomatoPie wrote:Why should insurance, or Obama, or anyone pay for your boner pills? For your happy pills, for your birth control pills? For your chiro visits? Which unenumerated right is that? Can you cite a reason that boner pills should be paid for in a collective solution, but not my food, my house, my car?

why should any insurance, of any kind, ever invoke any sort of "risk management" other than avoidance?

your food, your house, your car already enjoy "socialized insurance protection", in the sense of "collective" policies and practices that mitigate risk. but you know this.

few forms of insurance measure up to any ideal model (clearly define insured risk, confirm losses, etc)

Arguing on the internet, special Olympics, etc.

dajafi wrote:TP, I apologize if I gave offense. I meant it when I said I shouldn't have responded. But if you'd like to share your fully thought out, rational, logical, achievable solution for healthcare reform that doesn't involve employers or government, and doesn't disadvantage "the competent" while providing for the neediest and being more or less revenue neutral, I sincerely would like to hear it.

I'm guessing you can't, because a lot of people much smarter than either of us haven't been able to. As I tried to suggest, "Obamacare" is essentially a Republican idea, the early '90s Heritage Fdn alternative to Hillarycare. It's as incremental and non-disruptive to existing arrangements (primacy of employer provided coverage) as they could make it. Whatever you think of those existing arrangements, I suspect you'd agree there's value to not just blowing stuff up.

It does create winners and losers, like any redistributive policy. I'm pretty sure it does this in a way where far more Americans win than lose, and in a way that constrains costs better than the alternatives and creates positive economic externalities. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.

I get that it rankles ideologically. So, again, I'd love to hear your alternative.

No apology required. It's late tonite - but I will give you details on Health Care as envisioned by TP, Health Care Czar. I don't know how we get there - politically, because there are so many vested interests making money (and funding political campaigns) off the current and most recent systems.

Bt just for starters, mine does involve government - just not for everyone. Like food and housing, those other things essential to get from day to day.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Why should insurance, or Obama, or anyone pay for your boner pills? For your happy pills, for your birth control pills? For your chiro visits? Which unenumerated right is that? Can you cite a reason that boner pills should be paid for in a collective solution, but not my food, my house, my car?

why should any insurance, of any kind, ever invoke any sort of "risk management" other than avoidance?

your food, your house, your car already enjoy "socialized insurance protection", in the sense of "collective" policies and practices that mitigate risk. but you know this.

few forms of insurance measure up to any ideal model (clearly define insured risk, confirm losses, etc)

The key is choice.

I can choose the things I want to insure, or not, in all other aspects of my life. And, insurers are often (not always) free to tailor policies to meet market needs.

The pooling of risk enables undertakings small and grand. It's grease to the economy.

*tomatopie carefully types out his plan to solve medical insurance in America on backshegoes dot com. Rush's "Anthem" is playing in the background.*

tp: i've done it. i've saved america.

TomatoPie wrote:
I can choose the things I want to insure, or not, in all other aspects of my life.

not if you want to operate your motor vehicle on the streets

Bucky wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:
I can choose the things I want to insure, or not, in all other aspects of my life.

not if you want to operate your motor vehicle on the streets

My wife prefers to do so on the sidewalk.

Bucky wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:
I can choose the things I want to insure, or not, in all other aspects of my life.

not if you want to operate your motor vehicle on the streets

Good point - but I do have the choice not to drive. I really don't have complete control over my health, OTOH.

In many states, I can choose to post a bond in lieu of buying insurance.

Public streets - provided collectively with tax dollars - are justly regulated by government. I don't have to buy insurance on my vehicle - I just need to buy liability insurance for the damage I might do to others from operating two tons of metal at 65mph.

Best of all, government does not pour money into the auto insurance market, inflating costs. Government is not a provider nor a subsidizer of auto insurance.

It varies by state - some auto insurance laws are worse than others. There's lots of room to improve auto insurance too - but let's save that for another discussion.

this Israel/Palestine conflict is decidedly one-sided. I'm not sure what is being gained here by Israel. They can bat the 'rockets' down like flies but are killing what mostly amounts to innocent civilians. this is bad news.

pacino wrote:this Israel/Palestine conflict is decidedly one-sided. I'm not sure what is being gained here by Israel. They can bat the 'rockets' down like flies but are killing what mostly amounts to innocent civilians. this is bad news.

Don't tell that to Facebook!

TomatoPie wrote:The key is choice.

I can choose the things I want to insure, or not, in all other aspects of my life. And, insurers are often (not always) free to tailor policies to meet market needs.

bullshit.

insurance contracts are as asymmetric as you can get, their provisions hedged all around in favor of insurers by the relentless grinds who tend the captured regulators of the industry.

A consumer's choices are radically limited. Shill all you want for the industry, but you aren't fooling anyone

yes, i very much seem to hold a minority viewpoint around here on the conflict, from the looks of my feed and the local paper. Of course Hamas shouldn't be firing rockets, but I'm not sure what is to be gained by this offensive by Israel.

TomatoPie wrote:
Good point - but I do have the choice not to drive. I really don't have complete control over my health, OTOH.

A reasonable case can be made that sound health care infrastructure - including behavioral health, and reproductive health - is a national security issue.

in other words , the key is not your choice

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:
Good point - but I do have the choice not to drive. I really don't have complete control over my health, OTOH.

A reasonable case can be made that sound health care infrastructure - including behavioral health, and reproductive health - is a national security issue.

If indeed that is the case, all the more reason to move away from policies - like ObamaCare - that hinder delivery of quality care.

This is economics and I work in healthcare so I'm jumping in:

1. I think there is some reasonable evidence that in areas of healthcare where insurance/government doesn't intervene, we've seen some gains in quality and lower cost - specifically cosmetic surgery and LASIK. You don't "need" either so insurance won't underwrite it and the consumer is on the hook for the whole cost. The results are that prices for boob jobs and LASIK are lower than ever while gains in quality have improved. This supply and demand thing is the same thing that's occurred with consumer goods like TVs, air travel, etc.

It's not surprising why people who believe in that would like to see it implemented for other areas of healthcare and certainly, whatever side you fall on, you should oppose the lack of transparency in pricing that currently goes on by hospitals. It's scandalous and it doesn't help people make decisions. Without people baring the full price, plus the whole mistaken assumption that quality equals high costs, there's likely not going to be a lot of pushing down prices going on.

2. The problem with TP is that healthcare isn't every other good for two reasons:

a. when the chips are down and somebody has opted out of healthcare, we're not a society that I (and a whole lot of other people) want to live in where we say "sorry, you opted out, we're not fixing your broken body from the car accident or your cancer with this chemo". So yeah, I don't mind making the young people pay for catastrophic care and maybe not even that catastrophic care.
b. while it goes on, I don't want to make it official that if you're rich, you get the best care and if you're poor you get the worst care. Again it happens, but we don't need to sanction it.

sydnor wrote:This is economics and I work in healthcare so I'm jumping in:

1. I think there is some reasonable evidence that in areas of healthcare where insurance/government doesn't intervene, we've seen some gains in quality and lower cost - specifically cosmetic surgery and LASIK. You don't "need" either so insurance won't underwrite it and the consumer is on the hook for the whole cost. The results are that prices for boob jobs and LASIK are lower than ever while gains in quality have improved. This supply and demand thing is the same thing that's occurred with consumer goods like TVs, air travel, etc.

It's not surprising why people who believe in that would like to see it implemented for other areas of healthcare and certainly, whatever side you fall on, you should oppose the lack of transparency in pricing that currently goes on by hospitals. It's scandalous and it doesn't help people make decisions. Without people baring the full price, plus the whole mistaken assumption that quality equals high costs, there's likely not going to be a lot of pushing down prices going on.

2. The problem with TP is that healthcare isn't every other good for two reasons:

a. when the chips are down and somebody has opted out of healthcare, we're not a society that I (and a whole lot of other people) want to live in where we say "sorry, you opted out, we're not fixing your broken body from the car accident or your cancer with this chemo". So yeah, I don't mind making the young people pay for catastrophic care and maybe not even that catastrophic care.
b. while it goes on, I don't want to make it official that if you're rich, you get the best care and if you're poor you get the worst care. Again it happens, but we don't need to sanction it.

Good post. Perhaps should be discussed in the healthcare thread? Points worth exploring.

dajafi wrote: So, again, I'd love to hear your alternative.

Goin' to the healthcare thread, where all will be revealed.

TomatoPie wrote:If indeed that is the case, all the more reason to move away from policies - like ObamaCare - that hinder delivery of quality care.

right.

what?

identify, in detail, the specific ways ACA "hinders delivery of quality care". Remember, spelling counts, and you are being timed

this gives me a great idea for a thread: "Drunk Health Policy"

pacino wrote: