19 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFA true free market would be no government provision of free services to anyone. I'm not saying that's the ideal system by any stretch of the imagination. But, you can't say I shouldn't be worried about the price of private health care alongside a universal government system, as the government system would artificially eliminate most providers, who would either work under the government system or, if the government system didn't pay enough, may choose other professions.
What would make it "true"?
The only private providers left would be:
1) the people who voluntarily keep out of the government system to make more money; and to do this they'd naturally have to charge more.
2) The people who were not competent enough to provide care within the government system, who you obviously don't want to use in any case.
The private providers would cater primarily to the rich and desperate. As such, it stands to reason that their rates would be higher than the market would otherwise dictate.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76The Post Office delivers packages, but UPS and Federal Express aren't out of business. If the government is sooooooooooo inefficient in providing services, you'd think everybody who could would join a competing private health insurance rather than the public one.
A true free market would be no government provision of free services to anyone. I'm not saying that's the ideal system by any stretch of the imagination. But, you can't say I shouldn't be worried about the price of private health care alongside a universal government system, as the government system would artificially eliminate most providers, who would either ...[text shortened]... tands to reason that their rates would be higher than the market would otherwise dictate.
19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst of all, I never said the government was so inefficient at anything. All I said that I'm not wrong to worry about the cost of private care alongside a public system.
The Post Office delivers packages, but UPS and Federal Express aren't out of business. If the government is sooooooooooo inefficient in providing services, you'd think everybody who could would join a competing private health insurance rather than the public one.
Second, the analogy to the USPS and FedEx doesn't work because the USPS also charges money for their services. If the USPS ran a free delivery service, see how long FedEx would last. Universal health coverage would be free (or extremely cheap) at the point of service.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I haven't heard that the public health insurance would be free for those who could afford to pay. I don't think that's the proposal.
First of all, I never said the government was so inefficient at anything. All I said that I'm not wrong to worry about the cost of private care alongside a public system.
Second, the analogy to the USPS and FedEx doesn't work because the USPS also charges money for their services. If the USPS ran a free delivery service, see how long FedEx would last. Universal health coverage would be free (or extremely cheap) at the point of service.
19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt results in cut off points and therefore perceived injustice. Without means testing, everybody (who pays tax) pays tax, everybody can use it. Many people opt out and go private, simply taking the fact they paid a contribution to the NHS on the chin. That's how it's been in the U.K. since the 1940s.
Why not?
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFSorry, I don't see anything wrong with people paying an affordable premium for public health insurance to help offset the overall costs.
It results in cut off points and therefore perceived injustice. Without means testing, everybody (who pays tax) pays tax, everybody can use it. Many people opt out and go private, simply taking the fact they paid a contribution to the NHS on the chin. That's how it's been in the U.K. since the 1940s.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauder$49/month is free, for all intents and purposes (unless you mean per person; then a big family would have to pay a significant amount).
Why not? Didn't KN say that people in the Netherlands pay $49 a month for public health insurance?
If it's based on means and only low income people would be eligible, then all the government is really talking about is relaxing the Medicaid requirements. If that's really all they're talking about then it won't solve the problem of the bureaucratic waste that stems from the private insurance systems and doctors' conflicts of interests with regard to referrals. So, really, what's the point?
Either do it right or don't do it at all.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76But what happens if you break your hip, and some bureaucrat working at your HMO decides you're not going to get any coverage - and you have to spend 7 months in court arguing that this should have been covered?
That's not the point. Just because you think a procedure isn't important doesn't mean we should sacrifice people's ability to get timely treatment. I'm certainly not rich. My employer pays for my mediocre HMO. But if I break my hip and am told to come back for surgery 7 months from Tuesday, because, while my insurance covers the procedure, some bureaucrat decid ...[text shortened]... ng, you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Key West of getting it through Congress.
If you are able to pay the full cost, you have full freedom -- but if somebody else is paying for it (be it an insurance company, the government, or Aunt Matilda), you are dependent on that somebody else to approve it.