Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

    Originally posted by leswp1 View Post
    The uninsured here don't get surgery/service at all unless on an urgent basis. There is no mechanism to take care of them at all. At least the other countries address the problem in some way
    We all agree that we need to address this issue, which can be done more practically in an incremental fashion. PPACA doesn't have a mechanism to take care of them either; it merely says they have to pay a fine if they don't buy insurance themselves; except that the dollar figures are all way out of balance: the fine is lower than the premium. What is worse, there is no way to buy catastrophe-only coverage, even though that is what makes the most sense in this context. A policy with a $5,000 deductible and coinsurance above that to a higher limit would be very affordable compared to what is mandated in the current law.

    It seems to me the single biggest problem is a grave error in thinking: trying to invent a comprehensive solution on the fly rather than allow for a variety of local solutions that fit the unique circumstances of such a widely-varying nation.
    "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

    "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

    "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

    "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

    Comment


    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

      Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
      The evidence from Canada and the UK seem very clearly to indicate that their are two payors; the people receiving the service pay by waiting in line for months for I'm not willing to have my children and grand-children do without scientific advancement so a few people can pat themselves on the back by appreciating how clever and progressive they are.
      And many are not willing to have millions of children and grand-children go uncovered so a few people can pat themselves on the back by appreciating how clever and regressive they are.

      The strongest arguments against universal coverage are about "what ifs" like corporate profitability and scientific innovation. The strongest arguments in favor of universal coverage are about real life, present day problems, like people being uncovered or only being covered for emergencies, which drives up everybody's costs.

      Absent a compelling ideological bias that willingly blinds one to certain outcomes, the rational thing is to address the problems we already know exist and then accommodate down the line if we see theoretical issues actually coming to fruition. My guess is that profit motive and scientific advancement are strong enough forces that they can withstand a local reconfiguration of one business model.

      I'm sure there were plenty of merchants who wanted to declare war on the Arabs when they started charging more for overland routes to Asia in the 15th century. Extrapolation of existing economics by their contemporary knowledge would compel them to that conclusion. But Columbus found a better way.
      Last edited by Kepler; 03-28-2012, 09:51 AM.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

        Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
        It may seem like a technicality, however "single" payor will never work.
        a) the person receiving the service is the "single" payor. No way.
        b) the government is the "single" payor. Economically impossible.

        You need at least two "payors" for it to be economical. The person receiving the service MUST have some "skin in the game" or there is no reason to be judicious. You can't seriously propose that every aspirin, every band-aid, every tube of Neosporin, be covered 100% with no coinsurance and no deductible, can you? Elective plastic surgery okay too?

        Whenever unlimited wants and limited resources get into a wrestling match, guess who always wins in the end?

        It seems to me that we have to include some kind of incentive to people to use resources responsibly. I'm all for surcharges for smokers and overweight people, for example; they cost more to treat and if they change their ways we are all better off, why not give them some financial reason not to burden the rest of us with their lack of self-discipline?
        Who is suggesting that the single payor would pay for any imaginable health related expense?

        Comment


        • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
          And many are not willing to have millions of children and grand-children go uncovered so a few people can pat themselves on the back by appreciating how clever and regressive they are.

          The strongest arguments against universal coverage are about "what ifs" like corporate profitability and scientific innovation. The strongest arguments in favor of universal coverage are about real life, present day problems, like people being uncovered or only being covered for emergencies, which drives up everybody's costs.

          Absent a compelling ideological bias that willingly blinds one to certain outcomes, the rational thing is to address the problems we already know exist and then accommodate down the line if we see theoretical issues actually coming to fruition. My guess is that profit motive and scientific advancement are strong enough forces that they can withstand a local reconfiguration of one business model.

          I'm sure there were plenty of merchants who wanted to declare war on the Arabs when they started charging more for overland routes to Asia in the 15th century. Extrapolation of existing economics by their contemporary knowledge would compel them to that conclusion. But Columbus found a better way.
          I'm not opposed to "universal coverage" I am merely saying please don't try to achieve it by imposing a one-size fits all, centralized control, unilateral no-choices design, single payor, single insurer plan. Assemble different pieces together in different parts of the country for different people in different ways. Everyone needs transportation; we don't force everyone to buy only one particular make and model of car; we don't even force bicyclists to buy cars at all!

          Have insurance premiums reflect the actual morbidity of the group being insured (don't charge those in their 20s five times what their risk profile indicates they'd cost). Allow high-deductible catastrophe only plans, and a tax-deferred health savings account that you can roll over from year to year from which to pay deductibles and co-insurance. Allow differential pricing for those whose lifestyle choices create higher medical costs (e.g., smokers, heroin and meth addicts, sedentary over-eaters). Have special subsidized risk pools to help people with chronic conditions. There is no reason that the government couldn't provide premium-support plans to those who really need the help.

          You are confounding two very distinct situations into one.



          I thought you presented yourself as an engineer? Isn't the law of unintended consequences important? Do you roll out a radical new design that's never been tested first? do you routinely ignore data whenever it is inconvenient for your ideology?
          Last edited by FreshFish; 03-28-2012, 10:31 AM.
          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

          Comment


          • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

            Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
            Who is suggesting that the single payor would pay for any imaginable health related expense?
            If not, it isn't "single" payor any more, is it?
            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

            Comment


            • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
              I thought you presented yourself as an engineer?
              Good God, man! I can ignore most insults in the heat of battle, but some things are over the line.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                Good God, man! I can ignore most insults in the heat of battle, but some things are over the line.
                At least it is personalized and not generic!


                (The PC police can be happy that no other person, not even any other engineer, was insulted! )
                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                Comment


                • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  Good God, man! I can ignore most insults in the heat of battle, but some things are over the line.
                  LOL. I think he must've thought he wandered into the insults thread.

                  See you at the service entrance...
                  If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                    If not, it isn't "single" payor any more, is it?
                    This seems like an exercise purely in semantics...

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                      Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                      We all agree that we need to address this issue, which can be done more practically in an incremental fashion. PPACA doesn't have a mechanism to take care of them either; it merely says they have to pay a fine if they don't buy insurance themselves; except that the dollar figures are all way out of balance: the fine is lower than the premium. What is worse, there is no way to buy catastrophe-only coverage, even though that is what makes the most sense in this context. A policy with a $5,000 deductible and coinsurance above that to a higher limit would be very affordable compared to what is mandated in the current law.

                      It seems to me the single biggest problem is a grave error in thinking: trying to invent a comprehensive solution on the fly rather than allow for a variety of local solutions that fit the unique circumstances of such a widely-varying nation.
                      Although this is a terrific idea, it would have to be implemented by states (and in some cases even counties, because Kings County NY is VERY different from, say, St. Lawrence County NY). That would require even more bureaucracy, and would make the idea even MORE expensive.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                        Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                        The evidence from Canada and the UK seem very clearly to indicate that their are two payors; the people receiving the service pay by waiting in line for months for procedures that in the US are performed in weeks.
                        And yet, in the aggregate, aren't they healthier than we are?

                        The UK also has explicit rationing which also is a form of "payment" by the service recipients.
                        Whoever is the payor is going to ration. In the UK, it's the government; in the U.S., it's committees at the insurance companies.


                        For what it's worth, I'd prefer the Swiss system.
                        Northeastern Huskies Class of 1998 / BS Chemical Engineering
                        Notre Dame Fighting Irish Class of 2011 / PhD Chemical Engineering

                        But then again, isn't holding forth on an extreme opinion from a position of complete ignorance what these boards are all about? -- from a BigSoccer post by kerrunch

                        Britney can't sing. At all. She sounds like a cross between a crackhead chipmunk that had more than a couple beers and a drowning cat. -- DHG on the MTV VMAs

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                          Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                          We all agree that we need to address this issue, which can be done more practically in an incremental fashion. PPACA doesn't have a mechanism to take care of them either; it merely says they have to pay a fine if they don't buy insurance themselves; except that the dollar figures are all way out of balance: the fine is lower than the premium. What is worse, there is no way to buy catastrophe-only coverage, even though that is what makes the most sense in this context. A policy with a $5,000 deductible and coinsurance above that to a higher limit would be very affordable compared to what is mandated in the current law.

                          It seems to me the single biggest problem is a grave error in thinking: trying to invent a comprehensive solution on the fly rather than allow for a variety of local solutions that fit the unique circumstances of such a widely-varying nation.
                          The problem with localized solutions is that people and their insurance companies are NOT local all the time. We end up with the same morasse we are currently in with multiple crazy laws, loopholes and confusion. The lack of a comprehensive plan is what makes providing care and then trying to bill for it a massive nightmare. The current system is so screwed up and convoluted we can't even figure out what is covered and what will be reimbursed until it is submitted. The avg Joe has no idea what their insurance does because there are so many possibilities and so many different regulations depending on the state.

                          As to the high deductible thing. Mass has that currently. It is a massive failure. The cheapest I think you can get is about 350 a month if you are buying as an individual. So the $ that would have been spent to take care of things like the visit and the meds goes to the insurance co for providing catastrophic coverage. Ergo the patient then does not afford the regular visits and is in the ED with the heart attack he could have prevented with more consistant care of his BP, diabetes and high cholesterol. We get the one health maint visit a yr for free but if we discuss a problem we have to charge it as an office visit.

                          THe whole thing is so *** up it should embarrass us all.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                            Originally posted by Craig P. View Post
                            And yet, in the aggregate, aren't they healthier than we are?
                            Not really. Also remember they don't have as high a population.

                            Originally posted by Craig P. View Post
                            For what it's worth, I'd prefer the Swiss system.
                            OK, I'll bite... what's the Swiss system?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                              Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                              Not really. Also remember they don't have as high a population.



                              OK, I'll bite... what's the Swiss system?
                              Very cool. THey found out that there were like 2% of the population being rejected d/t pre-exsisting conditions and this was not acceptable. They made healthcare for profit illegal. They can attach healthcare as a rider for things like life, car, fire insurance. The companies have sig more motivation to keep you healthy because it decreases their other pay outs.

                              Germans have a hybrid system. Everyone is covered. You can pay for supplemental insurance that gives you a deluxe version where you are seen faster, go to the head of the line. This is understood by all. Everyone gets care. If you can afford more you may get it faster.

                              I don't have much patience with the c/o of having to wait. Many of the things we rush to do here could be addressed in less aggressive ways but would necessitate people changing lifestyle while they wait. A perfect example- If you have a gallbladder attack and it is not infected in most instances a careful diet will prevent further attacks for awhile. People do not want to wait or change their diet. Just get it out. (and before anyone asks, yes I have experienced it, it was bad and I did have infection or I would have waited.) This isn't true for all conditions but it is true for many.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

                                Originally posted by leswp1 View Post
                                Very cool. THey found out that there were like 2% of the population being rejected d/t pre-exsisting conditions and this was not acceptable. They made healthcare for profit illegal. They can attach healthcare as a rider for things like life, car, fire insurance. The companies have sig more motivation to keep you healthy because it decreases their other pay outs.
                                ????
                                Having just lived in Switzerland for 2+ years, I can assure you that there are lots of people there making a profit in the healthcare business, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Switzerland basically has a mandate system with minimum specified coverages, but there are loads of private companies who will sell you boutique plans that offer far more benefits at the numerous private hospitals, clinics, and "medical spas" in Switzerland.
                                If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X