Why is health care a business?

[Wolffbaden]

such a wonderful response.
Care to provide some support rather than just making a statement and assuming we'll go along with it?

Common fucking sense. Any product in a free market.

That's not a supporting citation; that's a cop-out which translates to be "I don't have one; I'm pulling lies out of my butt because I'm trying to support my statements."

[Sibirsky]

I doubt he's a Social Dem, what Social Democracy is helping lead Imperialist occupations?

From my Ameri-centric point of view, modern American liberalism (especially the more 'extreme' factions) most closely resembles social democratic parties in Europe. Maybe I got the terminology wrong, but he's definitely no socialist.

What do you want him to do, say he wants everyone to start worshiping Marx? He's subtle. Most of his proposed bills increase the government's control over some industry, usually at a cost to the consumers, while others, level wages (there are several of those). He openly talks about how redistributing wealth is good. He's as socialist as you can be, at least at this point in the US while still being able to win an election.

[Meryuma]

He didn't put businesses under worker control, so he's not socialist, he's state capitalist.

[The Adrian Empire]

I wasn't aware the President didn't pay taxes.

He does indeed pay taxes. It's his staff that's filled with tax dodgers. And congress.

Well, if you want to be technical, no one who works for the government "pays" taxes. Since they are doing so with taxpayer money, it's just switching hands.

[Wolffbaden]

He didn't put businesses under worker control, so he's not socialist, he's state capitalist.

Crikey mate! You're using logic! We can't have that here!

You really think they'll listen? Nope. I, for one, appreciate your effort, however.

It's about like the people who claim he's a Muslim. He drinks beer, eats pork hotdogs, smokes cigarettes, and does not make his wife wear a veil. If he's a Muslim, Mohammed would agree he's the worst follower of Islam in history.

[Sibirsky]

Insurance companies are a business, not a charity. Do you know the definition of insurance? That would be the equivalent of me crashing my car, getting insurance, then trying to make a claim on my car.

Because we both know that car insurance and health insurance are the same thing, and are completely comparable in what they cover. Cars are just like brain tumors/diabetes/arthritis/glaucoma/etc., after all.

Insurance is the transfer of risk of loss. Paying for damages to property or damages to your health. The risk is not knowing how much damage there is going to be and when it is going to happen.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Which insurance company will cover all the people with pre-existing conditions that everyone else won't take?

Any of them would of they did not have a steady stream of guaranteed customers.

Bzzt, wrong. No one would for the same reason none do now.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Cut out the asininity and even Sibirsky can identify why health care as a business screws people over.

*** Warned for flamebait ***

Bullshit.

[Sibirsky]

Any of them would of they did not have a steady stream of guaranteed customers.

A business model could be made for it, quite simply, one only needs to pay a higher premium which is fair, if you are a bad driver, hell if your male (how's that for pre-existing condition) you have to pay higher car insurance, same thing if you have a higher likelihood of heart attack, insurance is after all a business in that it hopes to get more money from you then it pays to you, if you don't want to play their game solid investments and savings work just as well.

Precisely. One of the reasons I like HSAs. That, and they lower the overall cost. As greed and death pointed out. And many writers on Mises.

[The Black Forrest]

Which insurance company will cover all the people with pre-existing conditions that everyone else won't take?

Insurance companies are a business, not a charity. Do you know the definition of insurance? That would be the equivalent of me crashing my car, getting insurance, then trying to make a claim on my car.

Well that sounds nice but they have taken it to "you have the possibility of pre-existing condition.

That would be the equivalent of me crashing my car, having insurance, and being told there are reports of a faulty steering column so we are not covering it.

[Greed and Death]

I wasn't aware the President didn't pay taxes.

He does indeed pay taxes. It's his staff that's filled with tax dodgers. And congress.

And his appointees, who then must back out of being appointed.

[Lacadaemon]

I've said this x50,000,000

You cannot insure health. It just doesn't work that way. 'Health' care is a generational transfer of wealth and there has to be a national conversation about how much is available/what people want.

That said, the US could probably slice 7% off the GDP spending wise if it went to a single payer system and also probably help the states out a lot if it was implemented properly. Some kind of monging NHS would save everyone money - even those who don't want it.

[The Black Forrest]

I think you've just hit upon why the free market isn't the best way to deal with healthcare.

Letting people pay for the majority of their care through HSAs (as I have suggested) would lower costs. But, feel free to continue to ignore my arguments in favor of your statist agenda.

I am curious how many people need to die before the market "self-corrects" and they can afford procedures?

Who should have health care?

[The Adrian Empire]

Letting people pay for the majority of their care through HSAs (as I have suggested) would lower costs. But, feel free to continue to ignore my arguments in favor of your statist agenda.

I am curious how many people need to die before the market "self-corrects" and they can afford procedures?

Who should have health care?

Everyone the market can care for, which optimally, is everyone.

[Lacadaemon]

Who should have health care?

Either everyone, or only the people who can pay for it. The US has empirically shown that there is no middle ground.

[Sibirsky]

It's never solved one problem or accomplished anything important or anything like that? Really now? Well I guess the interstate highway system means absolutely nothing.

The interstate highway system is good.

Public health programs, the GI Bill, consumer protection,

All consumer protection laws do is limit the products available to us. It's ridiculous hand holding.

anti-discrimination policies (prudently, an end to segregation),

violate property rights.

workplace protection,

workplace safety was improving before the government did anything about it.

clean water and safe food dictations,

Yeah, it's strange how many businesses want to kill their customers.

financial aid programs (including scholarships), all the money it has poured into science and medicine and technology, voting rights for both sexes and all races . . . I guess that all means nothing then...

Ok, a few things. A few things mainly led by the people demanding it. It has failed at the big issues.

Are you trying to seriously say that it has never solved a single problem?

No.

Also note that Wolffbaden is saying that Sibirsky thinks that free markets can solve all world's problems. But nothing has shown that Sibirsky said that. It can solve most probems, but not all problems.

You should spend more time following him around. This is a kid who has argued that we should privatize roads, highways, and interstates (among other things):

I'm not a kid. I argued how a private road network could work, and that such a network would not be funded by everyone through coercion. And it would respect property rights.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=67061

Hell just look at his signature motto:

Free market capitalism, path to prosperity

Are you going to deny that capitalism is the best wealth creation tool out there? Which is all the motto says. Unfortunately it's not original.

The rants with him are always the same: government is always bad- does nothing good; free market is always good, capitalism is always good, privatization is always good, businesses are always good. Honestly, it gets as repetitive as a broken record.

I have never said that business are always good. It was I, who pointed out BP's bad safety record. I have provided examples of other bad businesses as well. The point is, the majority of business are good. The majority of bills with good intentions, create unintended consequences that are far worse than the problems it tries to solve in the first place.

[The Adrian Empire]

Who should have health care?

Either everyone, or only the people who can pay for it. The US has empirically shown that there is no middle ground.

Not historically speaking, going back before 1960, you'll find the majority of Americans were covered. For a modern example, Switzerland has a Private Healthcare system with more then 98% coverage.

anti-discrimination policies (prudently, an end to segregation),

violate property rights.

It is perhaps most funny, that the segregation laws in the first place were government intrusion in favour of the racists (see; Jim Crow Laws) increasingly upset with the presence of blacks in their communities, the state segregated and the state de-segregated. Nothing to be proud of, in the meantime, racism died away between the real individuals, as Blacks were quite successfully making their own way to equality without the government.

[The Black Forrest]

I am curious how many people need to die before the market "self-corrects" and they can afford procedures?

Who should have health care?

Everyone the market can care for, which optimally, is everyone.

If you are guided by profit then optimal is not in play.

Maximum returns win. Which means many many people left out.

[Sibirsky]

He does indeed pay taxes. It's his staff that's filled with tax dodgers. And congress.

Well, if you want to be technical, no one who works for the government "pays" taxes. Since they are doing so with taxpayer money, it's just switching hands.

Good point.
I would actually support government employees getting tax free pay. As long as that pay was a lot lower (at least by the amount of taxes they currently pay).

[Avenio]

For a modern example, Switzerland has a Private Healthcare system with more then 98% coverage.

Not quite, unfortunately.

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.^[1]

Regulations also restrict the allowable policies and profits that a private insurer may offer, as noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA. Reinhardt writes that,

"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).

Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."^[2]

The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.^[1]

The universal compulsory coverage provides for treatment in case of illness or accident (unless another accident insurance provides the cover) and pregnancy. Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done:

* by means of an annual excess (or deductible, called the franchise), which ranges from CHF 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly);
* and by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess. This is known as the retention, and is up to a maximum of 700CHF per year (excluding medication).

In case of pregnancy there is no charge. For hospitalisation, one pays a contribution to room and service costs.

Insurance premiums vary from insurance company to company (Ger. Krankenkassen, Fr. caisses-maladie, It. casse malati), the excess level chosen (franchise), the place of residence of the insured person and the degree of supplementary benefit coverage chosen (dental care, private ward hospitalisation, etc.).

In 2010, the average monthly compulsory basic health insurance premiums (with accident insurance) in Switzerland are:^[3]

* CHF 351.05 for an adult (age 26– years)
* CHF 293.85 for a young adult (age 19–25 years)
* CHF 84.03 for a child (age 0–18 years)

[Lacadaemon]

Either everyone, or only the people who can pay for it. The US has empirically shown that there is no middle ground.

Not historically speaking, going back before 1960, you'll find the majority of Americans were covered. For a modern example, Switzerland has a Private Healthcare system with more then 98% coverage.

Well look, the costs have changed enormously since the 60s. As also the income wealth distribution. So it really isn't applicable to look at healthcare in the US in the 60s compared to 2010. Though saying that I am sure that massive savings could be obtained by saying that nothing post 1960 should be used in the US.

And nor can you really use the Confœderatio Helvetica as a reference point for the US. Totally different situation. For a start they'd hang they likes of Bawnee fWANK by his toes.

[Bydlostan (Ancient)]

Well, if you want to be technical, no one who works for the government "pays" taxes. Since they are doing so with taxpayer money, it's just switching hands.

Good point.
I would actually support government employees getting tax free pay. As long as that pay was a lot lower (at least by the amount of taxes they currently pay).

Eh, no, because their individual salary comes from the funding of their bureaucracy. Soldiers are paid with the defense budget, ect.

they still enjoy the benefits of all government services, they should pay taxes to fund them, like anybody else.

[Sibirsky]

Letting people pay for the majority of their care through HSAs (as I have suggested) would lower costs. But, feel free to continue to ignore my arguments in favor of your statist agenda.

I am curious how many people need to die before the market "self-corrects" and they can afford procedures?

Who should have health care?

People don't have to die.

[The Adrian Empire]

Everyone the market can care for, which optimally, is everyone.

If you are guided by profit then optimal is not in play.

Maximum returns win. Which means many many people left out.

If you believe that, then you don't understand business.

If there are people left out, someone will market to them. If they are so exceptionally poor that they could never afford any means of paying for healthcare, charities would naturally exist. I know I for one would support such a charity.

[The Black Forrest]

Who should have health care?

Either everyone, or only the people who can pay for it. The US has empirically shown that there is no middle ground.

Indeed.

The sad thing is there could be a middle ground.

Access to cheap preventative care.

Problem is the medical side doesn't like that as that reduces the need for expensive procedures. Insurance likes the high rates.......