Universal Healthcare Debate 9: Q&A, part 2 (9/12)

[mellamosean]

Comment 4 Does that makes sense people? Would something along those lines work? If not, please be specific about why not.

[mellamosean]

Comment 3 This means the government MUST intervene in the system some way in order to make things fair and equal for all people born into this world. This does not imply that the answer is government provided healthcare. The other way to intervene would be by making certain regulation laws. A potential law could be something along the lines of this: require that insurance company's charge less for each level of coverage for those who were born poorer.

[mellamosean]

Comment 2

but the mere fact that, in general, people coming from a poor family remain poor in relative to their richer counterparts suggests that people's future economic level is dependent on the economic level they were born into. This is less fair for people born poor, and goes against our nation's belief in equality. If we truly value equality, we must do something to make this right.

[mellamosean]

Comment 1

Rejecting people with previously-existing (man, you get a lot of emotional response from people when you use that term) conditions would make perfect sense and would be completely fair to all people if only all people were economically equal. Yes there are ways to move up the economic later and people do it all the time;



[jakeyw11]

Cannon just owns the opposition. 

[GeneralJakass]

@jakeyw11 Owns? "Provided they purchase health insurance while they're still healthy. And it's expensive and difficult to do."

[100CommonCents]

Cannon is pretty much 60% of this side's substance. and i am of the opinion in favour of free-markets. this debate wasn't as good as i would like though.

a good extremely short, eloquent book to read (not on healthcare - but on people's rights) is 'The Law' by Frederick Bastiat. only 50 pages long. enjoy :)

[JavaBlues]

Pipes says if you're elderly you can't free drugs for blindness. You have to go out on the market to get it.

What happens in the US. Do you have to go out to the market to get it?

[flyoverjoe]

@indoctus41

If what you say about John Stossel is true, please give examples where he has LIED about facts to his audience. He should be held accountable if he has. Either way, how does that extend to others on Stossel's side of the panel. That makes it sound like you have an axe to grind.

[indoctus41]

Anything that is being said by the GOP panel must be corroborated from other sources. I have caught Stossel lying in his own documentaries, just making up stuff to get his point across. These guys are ideologues, the Realpolitik in America (the end justifies the means). The NHS is experiencing problems of withholding drugs that is NOT HAPPENING in other European countries. Therefore, there is mismanagement within the British system. Period.

[Libertarian71776]

Paul krugman gets own in this debate! ahhh ummm , oh c'mon,

[pfarabee]

The main problem with healthcare is the implementation of insurance itself. The artificial barrier between patient and doctor creates a free-for-all system where neither the patient nor the doctor ever brings up the topic of price. In that system, there is never incentive to reduce prices.

So the solution is more insurance? Mandated insurance? And that will help how exactly?

Universal health care by it's nature must be coercive and restrictive of doctors and the prices they can charge.

[gunsandbullhorns]

YES!!! Paul Krugman finally tacitly admitted that price-fixing causes shortages! BUSTED! I knew he wasn't as dumb as he pretends to be! He's just contradicted almost ALL of his hair-brained economic arguments!

Supply and Demand are economic LAWS, Mr. Krugman. You cannot deny them any longer.

[TaffyAlpha]

Lololol, Economic LAWS? Are you trying to say that economic trends are the equivalent of Scientific Natural LAWS!???? Omg, are you serious? Do Libertarians really think economic trends are scientific LAWS!???

[gunsandbullhorns]

@TaffyAlpha

No. Economic TRENDS are not laws. If that were the case, then economic forecasters would be correct more often whenever the forecast along the trend! Lol!

C'mon, dude. When did I say anything about trends? ...and when the hell did I say anything about "Scientific Natural Laws"? Economics is a social science — not a natural science. It would be nice if you would quit second-guessing and/or misrepresenting my position.

[syghur]

@gunsandbullhorns If he stops misrepresenting your opinion then he has to debate you on actual merit. Probably not going to happen.

[gunsandbullhorns]

@syghur

Yeah, probably not. For some reason, three different people threw that accusation at me within the span of two weeks. TaffyAlpha was one of them. I sent PM's to all three of them, asking to know where they picked-up that notion (I suspect they are parroting something they heard from the mouth of a popular blog or youtube personality).

Not a single one of them had the integrity to responded to my PM.

[pyrolitical]

Having the market opened to more free choice forces the prices to decline. Which then creates an atmosphere that allows those that would otherwise not have health insurance to participate, because the barrier to entry has been significantly reduced.

[psychocycledad]

you should have gotten insurance while you were still healthy...LOL

[lyethian]

thats a logical/reasonable argument. what's so funny?

[Laynep123]

Universal Healthcare coverage is a good thing. Government run healthcare is horrendous. Can not the politicians, who are supposed to be the best and brightest minds, come up with a better plan than just throwing money at a bloated beaurocracy.

[TimeWarp66]

Health vouchers come to mind.

[modestryan16]

is my impression correct that kellerman does not even adress the issue of coverage?

[flynn2008]

Stossel should solo them all.

[mandennis]

"...unregulated markets really do a remarkeably good job of providing health insurance to people with expensive chronic conditions provided they purchase health insurance WHILE THEY ARE HEALTHY." Cannon may have given the best argument for single payer like in Canada. one word vs. argument that unregulated markets provide good health care - rescission

[mmclees]

Why would you purchase insurance after a catastrophe like a chronic condition occurs? That's like insuring your car... after an accident.

[mandennis]

bad analogy. do you mean a particular person and his car have a "chronic condition" of running into accidents? you mean you don't want to buy insurance for the NEXT accident? if a person has a chronic condition, like pre-existing, it will difficult to get private insurance unless you are willing to pay high premiums. health reform plans are about providing affordable coverage regardless of your "chronic condition."

[mmclees]

Insurance is about spreading risk. Risk is about the probability that something bad, such as sickness will occur. When you have a preexisting condition, that isn't risk, it's certainty. The bad something has already happened. Getting insurance to cover it after the fact is absurd.

So yes, that is exactly like buying car insurance after an accident.

[mandennis]

Ah, pre-existing condition is a "certainty" and you cannot get any insurance at all because getting one after the fact is "absurd." last time I checked, both the GOP and Democrats AGREE on health coverage REGARDLESS of your pre-existing condition. that's the whole point of HEALTH CARE REFORM. But for you it's "ABSURD."

[mandennis]

"... bankruptcies rates are rising fastest among those people who are covered by our ONLY UNIVERSAL COVERAGE PROGRAM?" is there a public health care plan already? there is none because it is still being debated, right? medicare and medicaid referred to here as "unviersal coverage?" also, the moderator is douchebag. cutting off the speaker/s even before he can start to respond or rebut.

[randyguitarman13]

2:44-4:00 Cannon bitch-slaps Krugman in a way I have never before seen!

[chadmak09]

incorrect.

Cannon dug himself in deeper by exposing that sick people are denied health coverage.

[randyguitarman13]

"exposing that sick people are denied health coverage."

...What!!! Krugman did not respond to Cannon's rebuttal...because(like always) he is completely wrong. So you...throw up an unrelated strawman...WOW, you must be really stupid!

[chadmak09]

then why did universal healthcare win the debate???

Cannon looks like a moron here.

Doing what he does best, planting a fear seed and watching it grow.

Our system does not work. End of story.

[randyguitarman13]

"Our system does not work. End of story."

You are correct! Our current government system does NOT work!

[IconicFiber]

i hate moderators

[Lawlow1978]

this micheal cannon guy is an asshole. theres no need for that douchebag attitude of his "universal healthcare will make us thinner and taller and stronger and...blah blah blah" shut the fuck up

[gold95]

Krugman starts to sweat and stutter just before 4:00. His nobel prize just took a dump on him. LOL

[cpiratebee]

For the people advocating a total free-market HC system:

You will not be able to shift HC from it's current state to a more free-market system how you currently advocate it. You have to deal with tax laws, insurance companies and system, medicare and mediacaid, licensing systems for doctors and other medical specialists, and the pharmaceutical industry. To shift to a more free-market system it HAS to be a slow shift because it is something that would be more politically palatable.

[utubehayter]

I advocate throwing politics out of it - and in fact every single aspect of life.. Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice. But I do agree that a lot has been built around the current HCS to make sure, it cannot be toppled even if people want to. Its a setup. The question is - are people going to call it a setup and attack it. Or are people going to imagine it to be some sort of sequence of mistakes and try to correct them.

[cpiratebee]

But my primary question to you is how do we move from Point A to Point B? How do we move from the current economic and political structure in the United States to a free-market system? We shouldn't be focusing on the goals we are trying to reach but rather how we should achieve them. I think the goals are clear but the way to achieve them is not clear.

[utubehayter]

Essentially, you are dealing with a big monster - and unless people make it clear that they mean business - and not that vote this way or that - but real business, things will not change. The more seriously people organize - the stronger the effect is.

The main hurdle is getting doctors to give up the protection from competition in the domain of medicine. It will take a lot of people ending up in prison - at least for a while. There is no other way.

[utubehayter]

In short do what Gandhi did to salt, with health care. There is seemingly possible reason for the govt to put people in prison if they openly and clearly opted out of the health care system and formed their own. If you want to change govt, you got to first loose the fear of imprisonment.. Just like Gandhi.

[thinkingrationally]

Paul Krugman is such an intelectual lightweight! I've seen him in numerous debates and he always waffles and crumples when his insane statements are brought into question - "No...come on!" What a brilliant response!

[goosejuice288]

What he said at the end was that but for people who don't buy insurance before they get the preexisting condition, the market would run amazingly. Well no shit, and that's because his model assumes that 'rational' people will always be covered. Of course he ignores differences in wealth and information, birth defects, variable premiums, etc. This is like Friedman's old private schooling argument. The possibility that this will increase inequality never crosses his mind.

Krugman has it right.

[utubehayter]

Friedman has clearly stated that he wants liberty - not equality. If only people have arguments against him that did not demand mediocrity...

[goosejuice288]

Oh ok, so libertarianism can only be attacked in terms of what is most efficient as it relates to free markets. God forbid I even bring up inequality. That would challenge the freedom to choose ideology. Fuck that, right? Better dismiss it as mediocre, or people will get the idea that laissez faire is not a complete theory.

Good job.

[utubehayter]

inequality? That is pretty much a given. What is the best value for their money for the people, can only be provided by the free market. Anyway you look at it - equality is a stupid and utopian dream, what I want is best value for my money - is that too much to ask?

[goosejuice288]

It's because inequality is a given that we have to take into account how it will disrupt the free market, fool. The point is that under completely privatized HC, people will be left out because of inequalities, be it financial status, pre-existing conditions, etc. We can freely choose not to let this happen, just like we choose to have centralized banking not to let the free market give us bank panics periodically. I'm not calling for socialism; I know any mention of it is against your religion.

[utubehayter]

Well, here is the thing, you have some sort of imagination of a free market. Check that again. I advice traveling to third world countries and checking out how their health care system runs like. (FYI, if you mention the word "health care" followed by "system", most of them would not even be able to identify what you are talking about)

In a free market system, you negotiate your prices with the doctor and chemist - not an insurance company. This system provides more bang-for-buck for the poor

[utubehayter]

Also, libertarianism can only be attacked on the basis of morality or rationality - if you can find a loop hole. I think you need to understand what libertarianism means and what "let us be" means, then you can attack it, if you feel like it. Right now you are chasing ghosts of your imagination.

[TimeWarp66]

Though our rights are equal, we are all very different and unequal in terms of ability. Which is why you have to place freedom before equality or you'll wind up with neither of both.

[cpiratebee]

This is a very simplified view. The idea is that inequality drives people out of self-interest to innovate. These innovations then provide technological advances that benefit everyone. Also most people buy insurance as a buffer of protection against any future problems. Car insurance, life insurance are all bought before a catastrophic accident occurs.

[TimeWarp66]

For the most part I agree. But no man is his own island. And I believe government should have a roll in healthcare. If an uninsured person gets hit by car and didn't by insurance ahead of time, do we just let them die? Government should provide a safety net.

[cpiratebee]

Actually I agree with you too. I think the United States should have a healthcare system like the Netherlands. A private insurance market, mandate everyone to buy insurance and mandate that insurance companies must provide basic coverage to anyone, regardless of health. For those who are below a certain income level the government can reimburse them. You have a competitive insurance market and a safety net for the less well off.

[TimeWarp66]

I'm not really okay with the government forcing me to buy into an insurance plan, but if the government is going to take care of you regardless, should they then have the right to make you pay into the pool of universal insurance (assuming you can afford it)? This is a very complicated issue, because simply leaving it up to the market would be cruel and unrealistic, and a total government take over would be inefficient. There are no easy answers.

[cpiratebee]

I will cede the idea of mandated insurance mainly because I think most people would buy insurance in order to avoid the costs of not doing so. But I don't think the pooling of insurance money would work because we currently have such a system with Social Security which cannot support retired workers anymore because it can't adapt to changing conditions. Reimbursement would allow people below a certain income to receive money back and would provide flexibility to adapt to market conditions.

[TimeWarp66]

Well I am fully against social security. Anything involving coercion by the state, especially into an inefficient bureaucracy is always a big no-no in my book.

So your idea is basically to keep the market place healthcare we have now, just use government to help pay for people who cannot afford it? That's sounds fine, but wouldn't insurance companies keep raising there prices if they can count on the government to make up the difference?

[cpiratebee]

First of all we do not have market place health care. The health insurance market is highly regulated (with bad regulations) and employers provide healthcare because of a tax loophole. If the federal government reimburses the people directly and not through the insurance companies then the incentives to drive down prices due to competition should remain. If you reimbursed through the insurance companies then you will really screw with the incentives to drive down costs.

[TimeWarp66]

Very good points. I agree 100%

[thinkingrationally]

That is one of the better ideas I have heard on this debate. A hybrid system, I agree, is a better solution than either extreme. Kudos to you for interjecting some intelligence into this debate!

[cpiratebee]

Thanks. :D Glad I could add a different perspective.

[utubehayter]

Mandated insurance is NOT a free market. It is corporatism for insurance corporations and big pharma. Please don't advocate a worse than half-assed solution under the guise of free-markets. Do you really want a Fascist-healthcare system?

[cpiratebee]

If you read all of my comments you would have realized I have rescinded this part of the plan. I agree that ideally people would have direct transactions with doctors and pharmacists. In fact I wish that people could freely buy any drugs that they wanted to without mandatory consultation with a doctor. Lastly I still think insurance companies will be a important part of US HC mainly because they can help lower the costs of catastrophic medical emergencies.

[utubehayter]

They can? How does piling on more expenses of insurance offices and employees onto the payers (consumers of HC) lower costs of catastrophic medical emergencies? Did you know that the people injured in 9/11 were screaming out which medical insurance they had, simply because those that had better medical insurance were picked up first?

How about in Katrina? Health Insurance helped? You need a way to verify insurance coverage, which may not exist!

Think again.... you are being fooled.

[cpiratebee]

My mistake. I jumped the gun about insurance and lower HC costs. Let me clarify myself. Insurance probably will not lower medical costs at all, but insurance can be helpful in protecting one from the possibility of spikes in medical costs. Insurance can play an important role in this aspect.

[utubehayter]

Cannot agree more. The job of Insurance is risk management. But what is considered health insurance today is hardly risk management.

Yes, people can hedge in insurance to pay for their bills - health or otherwise, to pay for large and unexpected expenditures. But, it should never be a question between Doc and Patient, especially even before the Doc has identified the ailment.

[cpiratebee]

I absolutely agree. Today insurance is used for payment of the smallest transactions when it should be used for high-cost, rare treatments. The question is how can we move to that system, compared to the one we currently have. I think I am more cynical than most, but I do not think we will have any such system for a long time. This is mostly because libertarians (and free-marketeers) do not have any influence on the current political and cultural sphere.

[utubehayter]

NOO! no! no! A thousand times, get out of the "insurance" provided healthcare mentality. It does not work and the USA is a glaring example. Let people decide how they want to operate - stop forcing employers from providing health care insurance for employees. It is this system that suffers worst in a mixed economy system. Look at how the much poor people in other countries handle their health care - they use free markets, BECAUSE they are poor, why can't you?

[TimeWarp66]

I support Health Savings Accounts. If we had a truly free market, prices would be so low insurance companies might not even be needed.

[utubehayter]

I don't support that either, but I agree that in a state-independent free market, doesn't even need an ideal free market, prices are so low that insurance companies are not needed. Check out how the health care market works in India. Indians enjoy cheap health care provided by Indian doctors, because the state has not yet figured out that it can interfere in the business. All govt hospitals are pathetic and generally not considered as hospitals, thus isolating the market from the state.

[darwinkilledgod]

His comment about fire insurance (at the end) was very important. People have to stop thinking of doctors and hospitals as their slaves, that should work for them for free. You cannot expect doctors to treat everyone for free if you want another generation of doctors.

[1Natecore]

exactly...

I don't think people realize that individuals become doctors because of the money...they see the need for more doctors, they have a passion for medicine and they fill the need to receive compensation. When your ceiling for profit is capped by the gov't instead of being limitless people will move on to other capitalistic endeavors.

[TimeWarp66]

It's not as if doctors don't make tons of money under government run healthcare systems. But that's besides the point, because their will still be private insurance along side the government safety net of healthcare.