05 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaHis treatment should be very low cost even without insurance -- there are plenty of companies looking to develop treatments for brain cancer.
In an economy with 9+% unemployment, employment itself is an improvement for many poor people.
So let's expand on the hypothetical waiter's story. Let's say he started his job a year ago, after spending months surviving on unemployment benefits; in other words, he was happy to have this job at all. The restaurant owner can't afford to provide health ...[text shortened]... bad incurred.
If you disagree, fine, but tell me, what should happen to the waiter?
05 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe availability of healthcare has been reduced by raising the cost through regulation and third-party payers. Using societies' resources to pay these costs then reduces liberty further by forcing society to impose higher taxes and more restrictions.
The electorate in the UK for example already decides how many funds are available for health care through the ballot box. Utopian ideas of more efficient health care don't change the reality that collective goods cannot be bought individually - or at least not in an efficient way.
People are only happier and more productive when they have liberty. ]
Yes, and reducing the availability of health care reduces liberty in a society in my book.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358So you're claiming that prior to the introduction of the NHS (for example) the average Briton had better access to health care?
The availability of healthcare has been reduced by raising the cost through regulation and third-party payers. Using societies' resources to pay these costs then reduces liberty further by forcing society to impose higher taxes and more restrictions.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, relatively speaking because two things have been confounded: progress in medical care and third-party payers.
So you're claiming that prior to the introduction of the NHS (for example) the average Briton had better access to health care?
Before 1912, it is true that there was little access to good healthcare. Naturally, because good healthcare didn't exist. Vaccination was irregular, there were no antibiotics, and virtually none of the modern panoply of medications. It is only since WWII that medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds.
Unfortunately, what happened was that progressives saw a way to buy votes with the notion that medical care was going to be 'free and universal'. Well, that lead to a problem. Scientific advances meant there was suddenly a LOT of money potentially to be made in healthcare. At the same time, progressives stepped up to be fleeced.
Suddenly, for every major medical advance (and a whole lot of very minor ones), one could ask ANY price -- and get it! Insurers parsed the cost out along all their constituents, took their cut, and didn't complain. Raising prices resulted in no reaction -- only in a rise in premiums. Why would it? The insurance company took a cut based on the total value of policies -- so X% of a larger number was better for them -- they had no incentive to reign in costs. So doctors continued to raise prices.
It won't make any difference if the government gets involved. They will ask for cuts -- insignificant ones. And suppliers will complain, and ask for meetings, and buy a lot of steak dinners for government regulators. And since there is only one 'customer', industry will easily convince them that prices need to remain relatively high and rise steadily. Government will agree because in the end it isn't their money. If they need more money, they will just borrow or come up with schemes like 'tax the rich'.
And that is where we stand today and where people are heading.
But the right course, to deregulate the system, which will drop costs HUGELY beyond the conceivable imagination of ANY government regulator, is what we need to do.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358So are you then asserting that -
Cancer patients are highly sought after for clinical trials.
A: Clinical trials are available to all cancer patients
and
B: Clinical trials for a specific, experimental (unproven treatment) is a replacement for comprehensive proven treatments
?
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNo, I wasn't generalizing. You were talking about a guy with brain cancer for which successful treatment options are often pretty limited. Since oncology is generating huge amounts of research these days, he would be in demand as a patient -- hence if the free market operated as it should, his cost of treatment should be low even for the most advanced sorts of therapy.
So are you then asserting that -
A: Clinical trials are available to all cancer patients
and
B: Clinical trials for a specific, experimental (unproven treatment) is a replacement for comprehensive proven treatments
?
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358Experimentation with a specific (possible) future treatment is not even remotely close to being a replacement for receiving actual treatments.
No, I wasn't generalizing. You were talking about a guy with brain cancer for which successful treatment options are often pretty limited. Since oncology is generating huge amounts of research these days, he would be in demand as a patient -- hence if the free market operated as it should, his cost of treatment should be low even for the most advanced sorts of therapy.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperTrials are usually against standard of care, so he wouldn't lose by it. The center gets paid to recruit him as a patient, so why should he pay anything?
Experimentation with a specific (possible) future treatment is not even remotely close to being a replacement for receiving actual treatments.
Depends on the diagnosis, but brain tumor can be tough to do anything for.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358What I'm saying is participating in exeriments does NOT constitute receiving healthcare.
Trials are usually against standard of care, so he wouldn't lose by it. The center gets paid to recruit him as a patient, so why should he pay anything?
Depends on the diagnosis, but brain tumor can be tough to do anything for.
05 Jun 11
This wasn't meant to be a healthcare thread, but since its been brought up I'll give my solution:
Do away with everything but catastrophic insurance. Make the medical community lower its prices by forcing them to give us pricing that a person can actually pay. Third party payers do nothing more than artificially inflate pricing.
Do away with malpractice insurance. Once again all it does is artificially inflate pricing by transfering the costs of malpractice lawsuits onto the rest of us.
Deal with malpractice in another way, but do not throw the cost back at us in the form of insurance premiums that just get passed onto us.
If you want a public solution, then open public clinics where doctors and nurses work the the public just as public education.
Trying to work under the rules the US works under today simply won't work no matter how you slice it.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by EladarMalpractice insurance will always be necessary as there are bad doctors as well as good ones, and the public will always foot the bill for it, if not in higher insurance premiums then in higher taxes.
This wasn't meant to be a healthcare thread, but since its been brought up I'll give my solution:
Do away with everything but catastrophic insurance. Make the medical community lower its prices by forcing them to give us pricing that a person can actually pay. Third party payers do nothing more than artificially inflate pricing.
Do away with malpracti ...[text shortened]... o work under the rules the US works under today simply won't work no matter how you slice it.
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by sh76Is it a loophole that capital gains don't count towards my social security?
It's rare as well that the rich even pay a lower fraction of their income than the poor (especially since the poor don't pay federal income tax other than payroll tax).
Still, I do agree that some loopholes, such as the 15% cap on capital gains tax, should be closed.
It is illogical to raise capital gain taxes and drive away more businesses. We live in a world where you can have corporation anywhere and who would invest in the US if you are paying twice the tax.