Beware. Socialism is Everywhere

[brewer12345]

I'll be staying away from this conversation now that brewer has arrived. I don't want to be tricked into talking about Hitler again!

Nah, I'll be good. No trickery at play on this thread.

Seriously, can you come up with a realistic way for the private market to cover everyone, at least at a basic level? I can't, but maybe I am just not imaginitive enough.

 

[HFWR]

Not sure I want to trust my health to a program set up by venal, corrupt and imcompetent people.

You mean insurers?

 

[Eyerishgold]

Here's something interesting I read that would help cover the uninsured for basic healthcare like immunization shots and annual check ups. Notice that it's not a givernment sponsored entity and is completely profit driven but can still make a difference.

No-insurance health clinic chain opens in S.F. - San Francisco Business Times:

 

[brewer12345]

Here's something interesting I read that would help cover the uninsured for basic healthcare like immunization shots and annual check ups. Notice that it's not a givernment sponsored entity and is completely profit driven but can still make a difference.

No-insurance health clinic chain opens in S.F. - San Francisco Business Times:

Not a bad start, but the fees will be out of reach for many and you would still be screwed if you had an accident of some sort.

 

[tomz]

Here is an interesting discussion on the pros and cons of free market delivery of healthcare from a consulting firm in the UK. It doesn't seem to matter what kind of system you have, someone will always be complaining about it.

A market solution might be efficient, but I don't think it would be equitable. Our system is a mess. Whether it's more of a mess than the NHS in the UK depends on where you sit. Bottom line: we spend a lot more per capita than anywhere else in the world and have 47 million uninsured.

Quoting from the article:

"Within most societies there exists, in some form or another, a concern that health care resources and benefits should be distributed in some fair or just way"

From where I sit, this should be the starting point for any discussion. If you don't agree with this premise, what do you offer as an alternative starting point other than: It's all about me?

 

[Eyerishgold]

Not a bad start, but the fees will be out of reach for many and you would still be screwed if you had an accident of some sort.

I don't think that the fees are unreasonable at all. If your only two choices are to pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance or $59.00 for a comprehensive physical exam, the choice is pretty obvious.

Check out what services they offer and the prices.
Welcome to QuickHealth

I agree that it's not a fix all. I'm not sure what the solution is for a major accident or if you need surgery. It's a great service though for preventive and basic healthcare.

 

[brewer12345]

I don't think that the fees are unreasonable at all. If your only two choices are to pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance or $59.00 for a comprehensive physical exam, the choice is pretty obvious.

It seems more than reasonable to you and me, but there are literally millions (tens of millions?) of people in the US for whom this is out of reach. We will always have the poor, as Christ said. Just a fact of life.

 

[Rustic23]

I went in search of the makeup of the 47 million uninsured. Seems like 10 million are not U.S. citizens and 18 million make more than the national average family income and choose to be uninsured. Of the 18 million 8 million make between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. From one of the articles:

Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million.

If these numbers are right, it seems to me we should be talking about the 14 million uninsured. Approximately 4% of the U.S. population. (assumes 300m total population)

 

[eridanus]

You mean insurers?

Venal, corrupt, and incompetent people? I think that refers to corporate fatcats.

 

[brewer12345]

I went in search of the makeup of the 47 million uninsured. Seems like 10 million are not U.S. citizens and 18 million make more than the national average family income and choose to be uninsured. Of the 18 million 8 million make between $50,000 and $75,000 a year.

Um, you might want to rethink that bit about the 18MM who make more than the national average. Many/most are residents of states where costs are much higher than national average family income. Where I live, I'd be squeezing a family of 4 into a small rental at $1500 a month, and private market insurance would be at least as much as the rent, assuming I could somehow afford it on, say, $60k a year.

We don't all live in low cost areas.

 

[Eyerishgold]

We don't all live in low cost areas.

People have the ability to choose where they live. If the costs of an area are to high to be affordable to a family, that family can move to a lower cost area, no?

 

[eridanus]

I went in search of the makeup of the 47 million uninsured. Seems like 10 million are not U.S. citizens

We could discount non-citizens except for the fact that they still use ERs around the country.

In other words, we're still paying for their sometimes minor problems in a highly inefficient manner.

 

[brewer12345]

People have the ability to choose where they live. If the costs of an area are to high to be affordable to a family, that family can move to a lower cost area, no?

Haaaaaahahahahahaahaha!

Seriously, you want big population migrations to happen based on healthcare availability/affordability? And why wuld you think that our $60k coastal family would do any better in flyover country? Costs may be lower, but so will their earnings.

 

[ladelfina]

Seriously, you want big population migrations to happen based on healthcare availability/affordability?

That could actually happen if there were anything even approaching a free market or transparency. Since to insurers neither transparency or a free market is a good thing, we won't see that happen.

But it could.. when private insurance starts costing more than housing, which it now does for some.

[And then whatever 'convenient' area might get overcrowded and then quality would go down, or cost would go up, or both, I'd imagine.]

 

[Rustic23]

Brewer,
I agree there are folks in high expense areas and it may/does pose a problem. My point is that the often figure of 47M that is tossed out to justify ripping up the current health care system needs further scrutiny.

Having had this conversation on another thread with Martha and several others, I do not believe that the nations health care situation will be solved between the folks that post here. To some it is a true critical issue that affects there FIRE, to others it is just another political debate.

Will Washington solve this problem? They will try. And, it will lead to many lively conversations on this board.

 

[brewer12345]

Brewer,
I agree there are folks in high expense areas and it may/does pose a problem. My point is that the often figure of 47M that is tossed out to justify ripping up the current health care system needs further scrutiny.

Having had this conversation on another thread with Martha and several others, I do not believe that the nations health care situation will be solved between the folks that post here. To some it is a true critical issue that affects there FIRE, to others it is just another political debate.

Will Washington solve this problem? They will try. And, it will lead to many lively conversations on this board.

47MM, 27MM or 67MM, what's the difference? It is still a very large problem. We can all lie with statistics (myself included), but the problem is still "bigger than a breadbox" regardless of whose numbers you use.

Healthcare is probably the #1 obstacle to me getting to ER. Everything else I can or have figured out. Healthcare insurance appears to be an intractable problem.

 

[Rustic23]

Using the 47M it is 16% of the US population. So maybe a low of 4% and a high of 16%. I think it does matter. Somewhere between 84% and 96% of the US population have health care. I think this was even brought out in a recent poll where a large percentage said they thought health care was a problem, but 75% said it was not a problem for them. So for me, it's not bigger than a breadbox!

So is health care another of those topics that the press has told us is a problem and therefore we accept it as a problem. Too be sure there are people dying because of lack of health care. So do we rip up as system every time someone dies? Cell phones in cars, microwave pop corn, helmets on mopeds and bikes, where does it end?

 

[brewer12345]

Using the 47M it is 16% of the US population. So maybe a low of 4% and a high of 16%. I think it does matter. Somewhere between 84% and 96% of the US population have health care. I think this was even brought out in a recent poll where a large percentage said they thought health care was a problem, but 75% said it was not a problem for them. So for me, it's not bigger than a breadbox!

So is health care another of those topics that the press has told us is a problem and therefore we accept it as a problem. Too be sure there are people dying because of lack of health care. So do we rip up as system every time someone dies? Cell phones in cars, microwave pop corn, helmets on mopeds and bikes, where does it end?

Healthcare is a problem for more than the people who have insurance. How many people cannot pursue a potentially lucrative opportunity because they are tied to the job with benefits? How many live in fear of losing a job because they will lose access to healthcare?

And then there is the problem of healthcare cost inflation. How large a proportion of GDP would you like healthcare to account for? 25%? 35%? 50%? More? Because at current rates of cost inflation, that is where it is headed, assuming that the vast majority of the population (as you believe) maintains access. More likely, somewhere along the way an increasing number of people will get priced out, and healthcare spending will get reined in as a % of GDP simply because fewer and fewer people can pay the freight.

 

[haha]

somewhere along the way an increasing number of people will get priced out, and healthcare spending will get reined in as a % of GDP simply because fewer and fewer people can pay the freight.

Then we'll be back to charity patients and 1st year interns polishing their surgical skills without much in the way of bothersome supervision.

Ha

 

[brewer12345]

Then we'll be back to charity patients and 1st year interns polishing their surgical skills without much in the way of bothersome supervision.

Ha

Sounds like a "top notch healthcare system", does it?

 

[FinanceDude]

Tell me how you propose to FUND this without dramatically increasing taxes, and I am all EARS.........

BTW, Wisconsin's legislature is fighting over this right now. Our democratic governor is proposing "care for averyone", and funding it by raising the payroll tax 3-3.5% for all companies.......

Oh, and the other thing, we would get to move from the EIGHT most taxed state, to Number ONE.........boy am I psyched!!!

 

[FIREd]

My view of healthcare is this:

The healthcare system in the US is the best in the world! if you have enough money to afford it that is... If I was a milionnaire living anywhere in the world and I was diagnosed with a rare or terminal disease which required top notch care, I would without a doubt come to the US to be treated. But the problem is not every US citizen can afford to use that great healthcare system and there is no alternative for those people.

In my opinion healthcare is a matter of compassion. It is the moral obligation to help those who suffer when we have the power (and technology) to do so, no matter who they are or how much they make. Cost should never be the first consideration. With a private healthcare system cost is always the first consideration because healthcare companies are not in the business of compassion, they are in the business of making money.

 

[brewer12345]

Tell me how you propose to FUND this without dramatically increasing taxes, and I am all EARS.........

BTW, Wisconsin's legislature is fighting over this right now. Our democratic governor is proposing "care for averyone", and funding it by raising the payroll tax 3-3.5% for all companies.......

Oh, and the other thing, we would get to move from the EIGHT most taxed state, to Number ONE.........boy am I psyched!!!

I think part of the problem is taht the efforts being attempted now are a state-by-state patchwork. That makes it pretty hard to get any efficiencies and the state program is likely to not be in much of a bargaining position vs. insurers, drug companies and hospital chains. So there is likely room to cover everyone and not have it be terribly costsly. But clearly it will cost something. Dunno about you, but I'd be willing to have a 3% income tax that would solve the healthcare problem. That would be a bargain.

 

[FinanceDude]

I think part of the problem is taht the efforts being attempted now are a state-by-state patchwork. That makes it pretty hard to get any efficiencies and the state program is likely to not be in much of a bargaining position vs. insurers, drug companies and hospital chains. So there is likely room to cover everyone and not have it be terribly costsly. But clearly it will cost something. Dunno about you, but I'd be willing to have a 3% income tax that would solve the healthcare problem. That would be a bargain.

Easy to say when you're not going to be the number one taxed State in the Union............

 

[FinanceDude]

Here's the actual plan, and I was way off on what the costs to employers would be:

http://www.wisconsinhealthproject.org/plan/whpconcept.pdf