[Pretorian]

Here's my solution.. I would say.. pass a law REQURING employers to provide health care. This is what Nixon wanted to do, but I would add a caveat that a company's health plan must be the same for all employees from the CEO on down to the janitor -- this will ensure corps offer good policies since executives and management won't ever give up their good healthcare.

For small business, have them co-op into group exchanges so they can get the good rates that big corps do.

This is not a solution. Six, do you understand what is AMA ? Until this organization controls supply and existence of MDs in USA , there will be no viable healthcare system, never, no matter what.

[Pretorian]

What's the libertarian position for dealing someone who is sick and dying because they couldn't get medical care earlier deciding they have nothing to lose and going on a murderous rampage killing a few rich doctors and patients, before killing him/herself?

Most people are too lazy for that, yes, even those with a deadly illness. As for your question , as long as they end up dead, it's ok.

[Keith_McClary]

There's no good reason why we can't have universal coverage. The Europeans do it, Canadians, Aussies, Kiws, the Japanese, the South Koreans, etc. etc.

I've heard Taiwan's system (since 1995) is popular and seen by business leaders as a national asset.

[Keith_McClary]

Still haven't got a response on what "deserves" means here. It's the crux of the debate, and so far, nobody's touched it.

As in:
"If you inherit a pile of money, you "deserve" to be rich."

[Keith_McClary]

In England or Canada folks with heart disease wait and wait for their surgery, will just have to die, too bad so sad.
Their breast and colon cancer death rates are much higher than ours.

But Finland's much lower for some cancers, while Denmark's higher.
Conference Board of Canada

The big issue here is wait times in emergency wards.

[SeaGypsy]

So if Japanese weren't in denial about adultery, they would make the rest look backwards. Policy wise, their system is the most radical, with major emphasis on preventative health. Aussie gets close despite being bloated burnt meat beer & alcopop swillers beyond compare. (We resent the 'probative' tests)

From a brief view, it looks like all the systems doing best are public/ private partnerships, rather than one payer or without proper safety net care.

[evilgenius]

Sorry Six, not accurate. Federal community health groups across the country offer sliding scale health care. Emergency health care is federally mandated. Kids already have extensive healthcare with the CHIPS program. Not saying the present system is great, its a system of all care for some. The alternative is SOME care for all.
In England or Canada
folks with heart disease wait and wait for their surgery, will just have to die, too bad so sad.
Their breast and colon cancer death rates are much higher than ours. Try a little facts for a change Six. There is no perfect system, just alternatives

The waiting you are referring to here is simply not true. It may be that their breast and colon cancer rates are higher, but it isn't for waiting. I know two people personally who have had to deal with similar issues in the UK. In both cases as soon as the NHS discovered they were sick they got on the fast track. In one case a friend of mine was in for a checkup and within hours was on an operating table, having quadruple bypass. You can lie and make stuff up off the cuff all you want, Fish, but you had better be prepared for somebody to reveal that you aren't telling the truth.

[evilgenius]

If you want some kind of relief when it comes to health insurance rates in the US the answer is easy, make all employer contributions fully taxable as income - and make the employers pay the employer side of income tax in the same matching manner as all other income is taxed.

[Ferretlover]

No-one DESERVES anything. That is a concept, a red herring if you will, that is used to tempt and/or bribe others to meet some agenda.

[SeaGypsy]

It's also a very common term in contract law. Red Herring that.

[vision-master]

No-one DESERVES anything. That is a concept, a red herring if you will, that is used to tempt and/or bribe others to meet some agenda.

Ok then why are you the Senior Administrator here?

[AgentR11]

"If you inherit a pile of money, you "deserve" to be rich."

I don't know about that, but turn it around to, "I deserve to be able to give my wealth to my child."

Completely different feel to the same concept.

[Ferretlover]

Because I was tapped on the shoulder, and someone yelled, "Tag! You're it!"

[evilgenius]

You know, as far as it goes, asking if people deserve medical care because they have health problems regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it is like asking if consumers in a free market economy deserve to have their needs met merely because they have the gall to have needs. There is no merit that brings standing. There is only the need which must be met. Not fulfilling that need is to miss out on an opportunity, isn't it?

You would think this would be obvious both for medicine and for product sales, but think again. In medicine as in product sales consumers are all the time being told, 'This is what you can get for this price. Take it or leave it.' Well, if in medicine we made it so that it was no longer necessary to get a prescription in order to get a medication, like in Mexico, so that people were left to self-medicate if they couldn't afford the current system, then probably the system would find a way to stop that and get cheaper so that it could still get the consumer's money. We need a change that is tantamount to what is happening in the marketing world, where the ZMOT(look it up) has arrived to change the way everybody thinks about selling products.

[SeaGypsy]

That is an interesting point. In my other home country, the Philippines, this is how it works: no prescription required for basics like antibiotics or contraceptives, painkillers (non opiate above Tramadol). Freelance hospital system (98% of which would be instantly closed down by any first world health department). There are downsides, like being held in hospital until payment is secured, not getting complex surgeries you might need if not wealthy. However a simple treatment which would have meant a trip to the doctor to secure a script, reduced to a walk to the local chemist/ drugstore for 2 peso per tablet generics saves a lot of money, time and b/s. My brother in law just had major steel work done on a broken leg, cost cash equivalent $1500. Full price in Australia without medicare about $15,000. With medicare, zero. But the $13,500 difference is coming from somewhere. In neither system is anyone going from comfortable to screwed, such as is happening in the USA over a similar injury.

[evilgenius]

In the US the $13,500 (or whatever it is here) difference is largely coming from an inflated pool of money which is the result of special arrangements by employers to provide health insurance benefits in lieu of pay rises. Since the 1970's Americans have been living under such thinking in earnest, causing their actual pay to decrease relative to inflation, but making them feel satisfied because they have this benefit. Meanwhile employers love it because they can chalk the expense of paying for the benefit off as pre-tax wages. That means they don't have to pay the employer's portion of income or other taxes on the amount it costs them. The problem, in terms of healthcare costs, is that nobody is incentiviszed to keep costs either down or even relative to something like inflation. As long as healthcare doesn't rise at a rate that would exceed the cost of paying tax on taxable wages employers pay no attention to the costs of plans. Employees are not in any position, short of suing for coverage for this and that procedure, to demand anything when it comes to the cost structure of the healthcare business.

But wait, that's not all, this arrangement also continually reinforces the measly pay rise atmosphere in the US. It is no secret that Americans have been making up for their lack of increased spending power by borrowing, sometimes over their heads. This system has created imbalances which Americans will either have to face or which will rise to the surface on their own, breaking out in events like housing related overborrowing situations destined for collapse. The solutions are staring us in the face. Make benefits fully taxable wages, along with company cars and houses for executives how 'bout it. Cause a real cost structure to exist which business will be incentivized to keep under control. Give workers the incentive to argue for honest pay rises, out of which they can make their own decisions regarding coverage. Pop the healthcare bubble before it explodes at least as badly as that of housing, in which it was not an innocent bystander as many think.

[vision-master]

Insurance,,,,,,,,yeah

$215 today for 90 Celebrex.

Insurance is getting to the point of, why even bother?

[rangerone314]

Its like alchemy, except they can really manufacture gold!

[Loki]

Well said evilgenius. I think employer-based health care, and the subsidies that encourage it, is one of the main impediments to real health care reform in the US.

[Fiddlerdave]

Well said evilgenius. I think employer-based health care, and the subsidies that encourage it, is one of the main impediments to real health care reform in the US.

Particularly since employer-based health insurance is totally immune to lawsuits.

"Tort reform" did absolutely NO GOOD whatsoever!