Free Market Lessons Learned from the Contraception Debate

[Damocles]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/free-market-lessons-from-contraception-fight/?singlepage=true

The controversy has also made apparent three lessons about America’s current health care system and why we need free-market health care reforms.

1) Health insurance should be uncoupled from employment.

(I've argued that one for years... Long before Obama was even a household name.)

2) Mandated benefits will become political footballs.

and

3) We must fight for freedom as a principle.

(Much more at link...)

 

[Don Quixote]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/free-market-lessons-from-contraception-fight/?singlepage=true

The controversy has also made apparent three lessons about America’s current health care system and why we need free-market health care reforms.

1) Health insurance should be uncoupled from employment.

(I've argued that one for years... Long before Obama was even a household name.)

2) Mandated benefits will become political footballs.

and

3) We must fight for freedom as a principle.

(Much more at link...)

1) kaiser discovered that employees with health insurance or coverage were healthier and spent fewer days off sick

2) the purpose of mandated benefits/coverages is a result of what our elected representatives or their buyers deem fit, however, coverage should expand to what medical science has to offer regardless of individual religious or personal beliefs (overall this will benefit women more than men individually, but will improve overall well being for families)

3) this should be replaced with universal health care for the entire nation rather than just the haves and have nots (george will can go suck hind tit for all i care for his beliefs) this is a representative democracy under a constitution and until scotus rules otherwise, it is the law of the land, but can be improved on by eliminating health insurers (especially for profit vendors) with a single pay plan for everyone in the country

savings with single payer insurance will be no billing, no bankruptcy losses, hospitals that do not have to worry about being paid for services and doctors not having to worry about whether a patient can afford a procedure

or

perhaps insurers can compete to see who can provide all of the mandated services for the least amount of money

will this eliminate parasites and drones, no, but it will provide us with a healthier country and healthier children

 

[apple0154]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/free-market-lessons-from-contraception-fight/?singlepage=true

The controversy has also made apparent three lessons about America’s current health care system and why we need free-market health care reforms.

1) Health insurance should be uncoupled from employment.

(I've argued that one for years... Long before Obama was even a household name.)

2) Mandated benefits will become political footballs.

and

3) We must fight for freedom as a principle.

(Much more at link...)

A couple of points to ponder.

(Excerpt) Under any system of mandatory insurance (such as in Massachusetts), the government must necessarily specify what constitutes an acceptable policy. This creates a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to include their own favorite benefits in the mandatory package. (End)

Any government policy would include more coverage than the average private policy as it would have to cover the entire population and having the most coverage is precisely the point. While certain members of the population are more prone to specific illnesses (for example, Blacks: sickle cell) that doesn’t guarantee any specific individual could not contract it.

(Excerpt) Yes, it’s wrong to compel Catholics to pay for others’ birth control. But it’s equally wrong to compel women to pay for prostate cancer checks, or teetotalers to pay for alcoholism treatments they do not wish for and will never use……..

Insurers should be free to offer to willing consumers inexpensive policies covering only catastrophic accidents and illnesses. (End)

The whole idea behind any insurance is we don’t know what we’ll require. While females will not contract *prostate cancer the idea of offering policies covering only catastrophic accidents and illnesses will do little to decrease the present number of 45,000 people dying annually due to lack of medical insurance. It’s the annual check-ups and early discovery of catastrophic illnesses and follow-ups for illnesses like diabetes and hypertension that save lives. The vast majority of people who would purchase the less expensive policies are the ones who can’t afford the check-ups so we’re right back at square one.

* I’m not sure if the prostate is removed from male transsexuals undergoing sex reassignment surgery.

While ObamaCare or any government medical plan is not perfect they do cover the most common illnesses. There are insurance companies that offer specialized coverage and those desiring specialized coverage are usually folks who are financially capable of purchasing it.

 

[The Dude]

Nationalized Healthcare
fuck we nationalize killing brown people.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/free-market-lessons-from-contraception-fight/?singlepage=true

The controversy has also made apparent three lessons about America’s current health care system and why we need free-market health care reforms.

1) Health insurance should be uncoupled from employment.

(I've argued that one for years... Long before Obama was even a household name.)

That's fine so long as you have a replacement in place that doesn't leave people to the whims on the individual insurance market. Group insurance is better and cheaper for most people.

2) Mandated benefits will become political footballs.

This is quite a nice use of the passive voice to shield the people that made mandated benefits a political football (i.e. people like the folks at PJ media). Mandated coverage doesn't have to be a political football at all.

3) We must fight for freedom as a principle.

(Much more at link...)

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. It's a meaningless platitude.

 

[Damocles]

A couple of points to ponder.

(Excerpt) Under any system of mandatory insurance (such as in Massachusetts), the government must necessarily specify what constitutes an acceptable policy. This creates a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to include their own favorite benefits in the mandatory package. (End)

Any government policy would include more coverage than the average private policy as it would have to cover the entire population and having the most coverage is precisely the point. While certain members of the population are more prone to specific illnesses (for example, Blacks: sickle cell) that doesn’t guarantee any specific individual could not contract it.

(Excerpt) Yes, it’s wrong to compel Catholics to pay for others’ birth control. But it’s equally wrong to compel women to pay for prostate cancer checks, or teetotalers to pay for alcoholism treatments they do not wish for and will never use……..

Insurers should be free to offer to willing consumers inexpensive policies covering only catastrophic accidents and illnesses. (End)

The whole idea behind any insurance is we don’t know what we’ll require. While females will not contract *prostate cancer the idea of offering policies covering only catastrophic accidents and illnesses will do little to decrease the present number of 45,000 people dying annually due to lack of medical insurance. It’s the annual check-ups and early discovery of catastrophic illnesses and follow-ups for illnesses like diabetes and hypertension that save lives. The vast majority of people who would purchase the less expensive policies are the ones who can’t afford the check-ups so we’re right back at square one.

* I’m not sure if the prostate is removed from male transsexuals undergoing sex reassignment surgery.

While ObamaCare or any government medical plan is not perfect they do cover the most common illnesses. There are insurance companies that offer specialized coverage and those desiring specialized coverage are usually folks who are financially capable of purchasing it.

Almost all of these problems can be solved by decoupling the insurance from the employer. The Catholic Church would have no say in what insurance you purchase if they weren't the ones providing it and could not be directly ordered by the government to "sin".

This is one of the weakest portions of Obama's plan, insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer, it shouldn't be a phone company's business to choose my insurance for me.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Almost all of these problems can be solved by decoupling the insurance from the employer. The Catholic Church would have no say in what insurance you purchase if they weren't the ones providing it and could not be directly ordered by the government to "sin".

This is one of the weakest portions of Obama's plan, insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer, it shouldn't be a phone company's business to choose my insurance for me.

That's just completely and utterly laughable Damo. You really need to research this issue and you need to focus your research on how the rest of the industrialized nations on this planet manage their health care resources and why the spend around half per capita of what we do while achieving significantly superior outcomes.

Dung is right, you're mouthing empty platitudes. Not only that you're looking at life inside of a shoebox.

I mean this "Laissez-Faire" religious belief that "The Market" can solve all the worlds problems is irrational. If the Market could solve this problem WE WOULDN"T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION! The reason we are joining the rest of the industrialized nations in reforming our health care systems is because "The Market" has failed us.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Almost all of these problems can be solved by decoupling the insurance from the employer. The Catholic Church would have no say in what insurance you purchase if they weren't the ones providing it and could not be directly ordered by the government to "sin".

This is one of the weakest portions of Obama's plan, insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer, it shouldn't be a phone company's business to choose my insurance for me.

No Damo. It would work swimingly well for anyone making $75,000 a year or more. Everyone else would be fucked.

 

[NOVA]

Three pretty decent posts and then Dude the Dimwit Dummy chimed in and I stopped ......
but you all made some pretty good points and then some off the wall statements.....and won't write an essay on the it but.....

Health insurance tied to employers has been the biggest and best thing to happen to the workforce in decades....
Its a perk... its part of your paycheck....
Its an incentive for the employee to keep his/her job and it benefits the employer.....

Mandated benefits will kill the goose that laid the golden egg...gov. needs to stay the fuck out of the private sectors method of paying their workers.......
That is a contract and agreement between them......

If your paying for insurance, (whether employee or employer) you get the say in what you will buy and what you need covered......
That perk needs to be itemized so an employee can purchase other, private coverage as they deem needed....if the employer provided insurance is inadequate.......

And this perk should be taxed as ordinary income or exempted if the gov. sees fit to do that......you should be aware of its value in dollars.....

The private sector needs to be the final word on this......healthcare is not a right, nor is your house, your car, or your food and clothes, it is earned.....

If the government needs to provide anything of this nature, its needs to be done with great care.....citizens need to take responsibility for their own welfare.....

If the gov. provides us all with a Cadillac for free, no one will be buying Fords
If the gov. provides us all with an all inclusive healthcare package, the insurance industry will die.....
If the gov. provides us all with a nice home, the real estate industry will die......

If the gov. provides, incentive will die.....


This should not apply to the disabled or the elderly or to the minority of people that can't take care of themselves through no fault of their own....
and 'can't' should not be confused with 'won't'......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Three pretty decent posts and then Dude the Dimwit Dummy chimed in and I stopped ......
but you all made some pretty good points and then some off the wall statements.....and won't write an essay on the it but.....

Health insurance tied to employers has been the biggest and best thing to happen to the workforce in decades....
Its a perk... its part of your paycheck....
Its an incentive for the employee to keep his/her job and it benefits the employer.....

Mandated benefits will kill the goose that laid the golden egg...gov. needs to stay the fuck out of the private sectors method of paying their workers.......
That is a contrat and agreement between them......

If your paying for insurance, (whether employee or employer) you get the say in what you will buy and what you need covered......
That perk needs to be itemized so an employee can purchase other, private coverage as they deem needed....if the employer provided insurance is inadequate.......

And this perk should be taxed as ordinary income or exempted if the gov. sees fit to do that......

The private sector needs to be the final word on this......healthcare is not a right, nor is your house, your car, or your food and clothes, it is earned.....

If the government needs to provide anything of this nature, its needs to be done with great care.....citizens need to take responsibility for their own welfare.....

If the gov. provides us all with a Cadillac for free, no one will be buying Fords
If the gov. provides us all with an all inclusive healthcare package, the insurance industry will die.....
If the gov. provides us all with a nice home, the real estate industry will die......

If the gov. provides, incentive will die.....

Yea, except that's an argument built on straw and just as easily blown over.

 

[apple0154]

Almost all of these problems can be solved by decoupling the insurance from the employer. The Catholic Church would have no say in what insurance you purchase if they weren't the ones providing it and could not be directly ordered by the government to "sin".

This is one of the weakest portions of Obama's plan, insurance needs to be decoupled from the employer, it shouldn't be a phone company's business to choose my insurance for me.

I agree, however, decoupling insurance from employer will not help those unable to afford coverage. Also, many will forgo insurance, even if only temporary, leaving themselves open to
catastrophe.

The primary goal has to be to ensure everyone is covered. The one step that can generate the biggest bang for the buck is offering a no-charge annual check-up. Diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure and high cholesterol and others can be detected early and, in many cases, a simple diet change is all that's required. Individuals without any symptoms are not likely to go for a physical especially if their financial situation is of concern. Even those displaying symptoms will wait if a couple of hundred dollars are involved.

The cost of looking after one individual disabled by a stroke would cover an enormous number of annual check-ups. Coupled with the loss of income stroke victims suffer the current medical set-up doesn't make sense on a country-wide scale. Then, of course, we have the unnecessary deaths and society's obligation to suppost the survivors.

ObamaCare is a start. Far from perfect it's primary goal is to change the mindset of those who have been continually lied to. Just as everywhere else, without exception, once the people realize the benefits of a government run/supervised medical plan there is no going back to the "pay or suffer" system.

The Republicans, philosophically opposed to such a system, will demand inclusions specifically designed to corrupt any health care bill. That's why, ultimately, the Democrats will have to unilaterally write the bill which is what I believe the Dems will do if they get a majority. A government run health care system will solve the employer problem, the religion problem, the coverage of the poor problem....it will solve a myriad of problems as other countries have realized.

 

[Damocles]

That's just completely and utterly laughable Damo. You really need to research this issue and you need to focus your research on how the rest of the industrialized nations on this planet manage their health care resources and why the spend around half per capita of what we do while achieving significantly superior outcomes.

Dung is right, you're mouthing empty platitudes. Not only that you're looking at life inside of a shoebox.

I mean this "Laissez-Faire" religious belief that "The Market" can solve all the worlds problems is irrational. If the Market could solve this problem WE WOULDN"T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION! The reason we are joining the rest of the industrialized nations in reforming our health care systems is because "The Market" has failed us.

The suggestion to decouple insurance from your employer is not an argument that the "market" can solve all our issues. That's some serious straw man building, you didn't even bother to put clothes on it.

Basically, what I suggest is to allow the insurance to go with the individual rather than be provided by the company.

If I thought that company-provided insurance (the market) was an adequate solution I wouldn't be suggesting improvements.

 

[Bonestorm]

The suggestion to decouple insurance from your employer is not an argument that the "market" can solve all our issues. That's some serious straw man building.

If you decouple insurance from employment, you leave people to individual insurance market unless you have some other alternative proposal. You haven't presented an alternative proposal. Under the circumstances, it isn't much of a stretch at all to suggest that you want to leave people to the whims of the market and, in fact, its the rational result of decoupling insurance from employment and doing nothing else.

 

[Damocles]

I agree, however, decoupling insurance from employer will not help those unable to afford coverage. Also, many will forgo insurance, even if only temporary, leaving themselves open to
catastrophe.

The argument to decouple the insurance from employers wasn't made to suggest it would solve the cost.

The primary goal has to be to ensure everyone is covered. The one step that can generate the biggest bang for the buck is offering a no-charge annual check-up. Diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure and high cholesterol and others can be detected early and, in many cases, a simple diet change is all that's required. Individuals without any symptoms are not likely to go for a physical especially if their financial situation is of concern. Even those displaying symptoms will wait if a couple of hundred dollars are involved.

If the primary case is to ensure that people are covered, it would be best to offer cost effective insurance to those that are not covered on a needs basis than it would be to mess with the insurance of those already covered to make everybody's insurance suck equally.

The cost of looking after one individual disabled by a stroke would cover an enormous number of annual check-ups. Coupled with the loss of income stroke victims suffer the current medical set-up doesn't make sense on a country-wide scale. Then, of course, we have the unnecessary deaths and society's obligation to suppost the survivors.

This cost would be covered under the catastrophic insurance noted earlier. And society's "obligation" to support survivors is not infinite.

ObamaCare is a start. Far from perfect it's primary goal is to change the mindset of those who have been continually lied to. Just as everywhere else, without exception, once the people realize the benefits of a government run/supervised medical plan there is no going back to the "pay or suffer" system.

The Republicans, philosophically opposed to such a system, will demand inclusions specifically designed to corrupt any health care bill. That's why, ultimately, the Democrats will have to unilaterally write the bill which is what I believe the Dems will do if they get a majority. A government run health care system will solve the employer problem, the religion problem, the coverage of the poor problem....it will solve a myriad of problems as other countries have realized.

And from which there are also known problems that we have a unique position to work out solutions for rather than simply pattern after systems with those known problems ignoring them and pretending that such problems are non-existent.

 

[apple0154]

If the primary case is to ensure that people are covered, it would be best to offer cost effective insurance to those that are not covered on a needs basis than it would be to mess with the insurance of those already covered to make everybody's insurance suck equally.

Ah, but that idea never works. It’s like SS. People won’t help others so, in the end, the government had to come up with a mandatory plan.

This cost would be covered under the catastrophic insurance noted earlier. And society's "obligation" to support survivors is not infinite.

Society pays for the injured, one way or another. If an insurance company is paying for 24 hour care for an invalid the premiums will go up for everyone.

And from which there are also known problems that we have a unique position to work out solutions for rather than simply pattern after systems with those known problems ignoring them and pretending that such problems are non-existent.

Countries have dealt with those “problems” for over 50 years, some much longer and considering government medical costs between 1/3 to 1/2 less it’s difficult to take seriously the “problems”, other than to say they’re manufactured.

For example, Canada spends 10% of GDP compared to the US at 15%. If Canada increased its medical budget by 50% there would be more doctors than patients. Even in France where doctors make house calls they spend about 4% less. The UK spends just over 8%. Imagine an increase of 70% or 80% to bring it in line with US spending. The hospitals could compete with the best hotels in town!

The point being and what I’ve always said is the US can afford to cover everyone because if the same amount of money that is currently being spent was put into a government plan there wouldn’t be any problems. If Canada and France and the UK were spending an amount comparable to the US and still having problems one may have an argument but that’s not the case. Government medical is cheaper and it covers everyone. That's why no country has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system and they all started out with that type of system. The facts speak for themselves.