|
DesideriScuri -> RE: The 8 Ways Obamacare Helps 47 Million Women, Starting August 1, 2012 (8/3/2012 6:54:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
No. The goal of healthcare insurance is to guarantee that the funds are available to cover any medical contingency, so that the cost of an individual's treatment isn't an issue for that individual and everyone can access high quality healthcare. Your misunderstanding of the raison d'etre of health care insurance helps explain why your views on the subject are so wacky.
Um, I know what the goal of health insurance is, but thanks for the primer anyway.
quote:
If your previous argument that preventative care saves $ has merit (and IMHO it does have a lot of merit) then the cost of that preventative care is paid for by savings down the track. So it's irrelevant who pays for it, it works out cheaper for everyone (in lower premium charges, according to the free market economics you subscribe to).
Not necessarily. The cost of care is artificially high, leading to higher cost of premiums. Since the hospitals are owned by the insurance companies, the cost of care can rise as much as they want, since premiums will just be raised to compensate. It will be nice to see fewer expensive procedures done, but that will do nothing to actually reduce the cost of each procedure. Until that is done, someone will be subsidizing the cost of getting into a risk pool (which does spread costs to a larger group).
quote:
My guess is that your opposition to this particular piece of preventative medicine is based on it being designed for women, and on ideological grounds - you are opposed in principle to anything with a sniff of collectivization. Hence you are forced to contradict yourself as you have done here.
I have not contradicted myself, nor do I base my decisions on who it is designed to help or hurt. Oh, but do continue your humorous analyses of me, my beliefs, and my priorities.
quote:
While I respect you for adhering to your principles in not having any personal health insurance, I cannot but point out that this represents another failure of the free market - in this instance, to devise a product that appeals to and suits you and your family's needs enough to persuade you to purchase it.
The ex carries insurance for the kids, so my family is taken care of. I am making decisions that solely impact my medical care costs. The Free Market system isn't free to operate. It has been skewed directly by some of Government's decisions, and indirectly by other Government decisions (or lack of decisions). And, that has been going on well before Obama ran to represent Illinois in DC.
quote:
Your previous argument about the poor levels of general health among Americans says everything that needs to be said about the current state of preventative medicine under the private system you admire so much. It just ain't working. Probably because in the absence of a universal healthcare supplier, no single entity has the responsibility or motivation to offer comprehensive preventative care nationally - hence no one does it properly.
You're right. There is no single entity responsible to offer it. 300M+ entities have the responsibility to require or demand comprehensive preventative care. It's not the system. If people demand it, the Market will provide it. This isn't a Market failure (just as GM and Chrysler having flagging sales requiring a bailout). People wanted more fuel efficient vehicles. GM and Chrysler weren't offering enough (leaving Ford out of the equation because they did not take a bailout). That's simply limiting choice by not supplying what was really wanted. It worked out just fine until someone else started offering what the people wanted. At that point, their bureaucracies weren't flexible enough (and their forecasts weren't accurate enough) to change to the current demand. Sales dropped. The companies were in trouble. That wasn't a Market Failure. It was a business failure. The relative lack of demand for the preventive care services resulted in a reduction in the offering. That's the Market working. It was providing what the consumers were demanding. If people demand more preventive care services, more will be offered. We, as a people, aren't demanding it yet.
[quote[
All the points you advance tend, after proper analysis and consideration, to end up as more reasons why universal healthcare systems are so superior to private ones. It looks like the only person who can't see this is you.
Nope. I'm the most vocal one (holding my beliefs) on this topic. That's all. And, if you think the "hey look, you're all alone" peer pressure argument was going to do anything, you're completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
