PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Do you prefer cheap healthcare or modern healthcare?


patteeu
09-21-2009, 08:53 AM
We often hear about the crisis of rapidly growing healthcare costs and I agree that that's an issue worthy of concern. But what we usually don't include in the discussion of rising healthcare costs is the fact that the quality of healthcare is also improving at a pretty rapid rate.

If you had the choice between paying today's rates for health insurance for today's level of care or paying 1989 rates for health insurance that would only provide 1989 levels of care, which would you choose?

To help you recognize how far we've come in the past 20 years, here is an article (http://www.mise.org/mise/index.jsp?p=decade_home) that lists medical advances over the decade between 1993 and 2003. I would have liked to have included some comparative numbers for things like cancer survival rates, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. In particular, I suspect that we've seen dramatic improvement in the survival rates for breast cancer both from improved treatments/drugs (tamoxifen) and from improved detection equipment (catching the disease at an earlier stage). We've opened a whole new avenue for advancement by mapping the human genome. And of course, we've transformed HIV/AIDS from death sentence to chronic disease.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:25 AM
This should be called "medicine" because it treats disease.
Healthcare is cheap.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:26 AM
False dilemma.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2009, 10:29 AM
What you have proposed is a "false-choice"......:shake:

Nice demagoguery though....

wild1
09-21-2009, 10:30 AM
Haven't you heard? We can have ultra-modern health care, cover an infinite number of people, satisfy an infinite level of demand without creating delays and without ever denying anyone anything, and all without anyone having to pay extra for it and without adding one dime to the deficit.

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:30 AM
And the false choice brigade arrives in force.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:34 AM
And the false choice brigade arrives in force.

LOL

I so wish I could just say that any time I use shitty logic.

"Oh, the conclusion-doesn't-follow-from-my-premises police are here!"

"Oh, the I-have-no-evidence-to-back-up-my-assumptions police are here!"

"Oh, the personal-insult-rather-than-substantial-counterargument police are here!"

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:36 AM
LOL

I so wish I could just say that any time I use shitty logic.

"Oh, the conclusion-doesn't-follow-from-my-premises police are here!"

"Oh, the I-have-no-evidence-to-back-up-my-assumptions police are here!"

"Oh, the personal-insult-rather-than-substantial-counterargument police are here!"

It's a pretty simple question with a pretty simple point.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:38 AM
And the false choice brigade arrives in force.

I'm not saying it's a false choice. I just think there's a difference between disease control treatments because health is defined as an absence of it only.

Hey, I use a lot of natural treatments and I don't like the idea of the society being heavily drugged by Big Pharma who serves to profit, big time, with this issue.
That plus I believe in building optimal health by enhancing it.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:40 AM
It's a pretty simple question with a pretty simple point.

Yes, so simple a question and so simple a point that it is logically fallacious.

Watch out, the logical-fallacy police are here!

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2009, 10:40 AM
It's a pretty simple question with a pretty simple point.

A serious a question over health care...simple? :spock:


:rolleyes:

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:45 AM
Yes, so simple a question and so simple a point that it is logically fallacious.

Watch out, the logical-fallacy police are here!

Some people can suspend logic in order to examine an interesting POV. I guess you cannot?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:46 AM
Some people can suspend logic in order to examine an interesting POV.

Gold.

Pure gold.

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:47 AM
Gold.

Pure gold.

I guess not. Do you consider the mandate a tax or not?

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 10:48 AM
Obama says 80 percent of our governmental healthcare costs are in relation to the elderly. What is the Governemnt going to do, regardless of what reform we have, to cut that?

wild1
09-21-2009, 10:48 AM
Some people can suspend logic in order to examine an interesting POV. I guess you cannot?

Q: So, we can give everything to everyone for nothing?

A: YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:49 AM
I guess not. Do you consider the mandate a tax or not?

Changing the subject?

"Oh, the subject-change police are here!"

There's a perfectly good thread on the subject right now where I'm talking about this.

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:50 AM
Changing the subject?

"Oh, the subject-change police are here!"

There's a perfectly good thread on the subject right now where I'm talking about this.

No, you chose not to answer my question. So, I'm moving along.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 11:53 AM
False dilemma.

No, it's not a false dilemma. It's a choice between two of the potentially infinite number of options. I'm asking about a preference between the two, I'm not saying that if you reject the modern status quo that you must therefore favor 1989 prices/quality above all else. That would be a false dilemma.

What you have proposed is a "false-choice"......:shake:

Nice demagoguery though....

Thankfully, you're not a debate/logic teacher.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 12:02 PM
Yes, so simple a question and so simple a point that it is logically fallacious.

Watch out, the logical-fallacy police are here!

The point of this thread is that we usually don't account for quality advances when we talk about healtcare inflation. The OP isn't an argument that proves that point, it's just a way of bringing the point to the forefront although it's clearly failed in light of the knee jerk reactions from the I-don't-want-to-discuss-anything-that-threatens-the-perception-that-we-have-a-full-blown-healthcare-crisis-that-requires-immediate-and-extensive-government-intrusion police.

A gallon of milk in 1989 is pretty much the same product as a gallon of milk in 2009 (give or take a dairy farm chemical or two I suppose).

A years worth of medical care is a remarkably different product in 2009 than it was in 1989.

That's the point.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2009, 12:06 PM
No, it's not a false dilemma. It's a choice between two of the potentially infinite number of options. I'm asking about a preference between the two, I'm not saying that if you reject the modern status quo that you must therefore favor 1989 prices/quality above all else. That would be a false dilemma.



Thankfully, you're not a debate/logic teacher.


Sophistry aside, you present the "choice"....knowing full well no one really would "choose" to go "back" to 1989--as if that, by itself, validates a choice for "modern" healthcare--despite all of it's excesses and inefficiencies. Do you wish to go back to the pre-automobile era?

It's a silly grade-school hypothetical.... :rolleyes:

patteeu
09-21-2009, 12:19 PM
Sophistry aside, you present the "choice"....knowing full well no one really would "choose" to go "back" to 1989--as if that, by itself, validates a choice for "modern" healthcare--despite all of it's excesses and inefficiencies. Do you wish to go back to the pre-automobile era?

It's a silly grade-school hypothetical.... :rolleyes:

The fact that it's a no-brainer (in your opinion) that everyone would find the advances of the last 2 decades worth the cost is pretty meaningful on it's own, isn't it? It's hard to be quite as outraged at the cost of modern medicine when you realize what you're getting for your money. Of course, you're too busy demagoging against so-called greedy insurance executives to really pay much attention to the issue on a (truly) logical level I suppose.

My own view is that I would expect some of the people who have had less need for medicine (the younger, healthier folks and those who don't have kids, generally speaking) to say they'd prefer 1989 levels of care because they don't really realize how much better medicine is today than it was as recently as 20 years ago.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 12:22 PM
What you have proposed is a "false-choice"......:shake:

Nice demagoguery though....



Hey wow! Kotter is finally arguing on the side of Democrats! Who knew that all it would take is the most liberal Democrat to ever get elected to get Kotter involved in the party once again?

penchief
09-21-2009, 12:23 PM
False choice. Affordable and modern don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Nice to see you have so little faith in American ingenuity.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 12:37 PM
False choice. Affordable and modern don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Nice to see you have so little faith in American ingenuity.

That non-point has already been addressed.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 12:39 PM
The point of this thread is that we usually don't account for quality advances when we talk about healtcare inflation. The OP isn't an argument that proves that point, it's just a way of bringing the point to the forefront although it's clearly failed in light of the knee jerk reactions from the I-don't-want-to-discuss-anything-that-threatens-the-perception-that-we-have-a-full-blown-healthcare-crisis-that-requires-immediate-and-extensive-government-intrusion police.

A gallon of milk in 1989 is pretty much the same product as a gallon of milk in 2009 (give or take a dairy farm chemical or two I suppose).

A years worth of medical care is a remarkably different product in 2009 than it was in 1989.

That's the point.

That is an interesting point but while the same gallon of milk or gas is pretty much the same the costs of buying milk or a gallon of gas has steadily risen just like health care. Why is that? In 1989 a gallon of milk or gas was at or under $1 now it is closer to $3.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:40 PM
That is an interesting point but while the same gallon of milk or gas is pretty much the same the costs of buying milk or a gallon of gas has steadily risen just like health care. Why is that?

Govt and Fed Reserve monetarization of the govt's debt that is due to excessive spending. Pretty easy to figure this one.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:44 PM
Not all rising prices in healthcare should be called inflation. That's misdefined. Higher prices from too many printed dollars is inflation. Price increases due to demand when there's scarcity is not inflation; nor is it inflation when new hi tech procedures are made available. In a free market, those hi tech procedures tend to come down in price like it happens with any other technology over time. But because it's not treated as a good, but a right, govt policy keeps the prices higher than they would be on a market choice basis.

Plus some of those hi tech procedures actually save consumers money as the older procedures were clumsy and required hospitalization whereas now they can be done as an outpatient procedure and in less time.

KC native
09-21-2009, 02:20 PM
Not all rising prices in healthcare should be called inflation. That's misdefined. Higher prices from too many printed dollars is inflation. Price increases due to demand when there's scarcity is not inflation; nor is it inflation when new hi tech procedures are made available. In a free market, those hi tech procedures tend to come down in price like it happens with any other technology over time. But because it's not treated as a good, but a right, govt policy keeps the prices higher than they would be on a market choice basis.

Plus some of those hi tech procedures actually save consumers money as the older procedures were clumsy and required hospitalization whereas now they can be done as an outpatient procedure and in less time.

JFC, quit making up definitions. INFLATION IS A RISE IN GENERAL PRICE LEVELS. THE CAUSE CAN BE FROM MONETARY PHENOMENA, COST PRESSURES, OR INCREASED DEMAND.

KC native
09-21-2009, 02:23 PM
What I find funny about these false choice arguments like this is that they always conveniently leave out France as a good model. France has a single payer system and cutting edge treatments (the first face transplant was performed there).

Saggysack
09-21-2009, 02:37 PM
Neither.

I prefer effective healthcare.

Donger
09-21-2009, 02:39 PM
What I find funny about these false choice arguments like this is that they always conveniently leave out France as a good model. France has a single payer system and cutting edge treatments (the first face transplant was performed there).

Did you know that 92% of French people also have private health insurance?

Baby Lee
09-21-2009, 02:43 PM
False choice. Affordable and modern don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Nice to see you have so little faith in American ingenuity.

Now if we can just get everyone to eschew market value for their labor we'll be set.

trndobrd
09-21-2009, 02:48 PM
I want 2009 quality healthcare at 1949 prices (back when the largest expenditure for most hospitals was washing sheets) but someone else to pick up the tab.

It's not part of the poll, but I would also like to ride to work on a flying unicorn. Perhaps with a tax credit for the cost of unicorn food.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 02:49 PM
Neither.

I prefer effective healthcare.


Another vote for modern healthcare.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 02:50 PM
Did you know that 92% of French people also have private health insurance?

I believe that's more supplementary. I'd have to check but it came up before on another board. Just posting off the cuff.

Donger
09-21-2009, 02:52 PM
I believe that's more supplementary. I'd have to check but it came up before on another board. Just posting off the cuff.

Yes, it is supplementary. But, of course, the next logical question is: Why do they need a supplement?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-21-2009, 02:55 PM
I prefer health freedom, now keep the oligarchs out of my business.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 02:59 PM
What I find funny about these false choice arguments like this is that they always conveniently leave out France as a good model. France has a single payer system and cutting edge treatments (the first face transplant was performed there).


Couple of things:

1) We subsidize France's national security with American troops. Without the need for national defense, France can have lazy work weeks and offer their population things that our population can only dream of. France is living it up on the American dime.

2) France's single payer system is a farce. In France, the share of health care financed by private insurance is third highest behind the US and the Netherlands, two countries where private coverage is the primary source of payment for a large percentage of the population. France does not have a genuine single payer system. It is subsidized by private insurance (http://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/elsaad/12-en.html).

KC native
09-21-2009, 03:06 PM
Couple of things:

1) We subsidize France's national security with American troops. Without the need for national defense, France can have lazy work weeks and offer their population things that our population can only dream of. France is living it up on the American dime.

2) France's single payer system is a farce. In France, the share of health care financed by private insurance is third highest behind the US and the Netherlands, two countries where private coverage is the primary source of payment for a large percentage of the population. France does not have a genuine single payer system. It is subsidized by private insurance (http://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/elsaad/12-en.html).

It costs them half of what it costs us to provide better care. Their system is more efficient than ours in just about every way.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 03:10 PM
It costs them half of what it costs us to provide better care. Their system is more efficient than ours in just about every way.


It's nice to not have to worry about national defense, innit?

jjjayb
09-21-2009, 03:11 PM
Obama says 80 percent of our governmental healthcare costs are in relation to the elderly. What is the Governemnt going to do, regardless of what reform we have, to cut that?

Let them die. It'll be good for them though. At least they won't have to eat cat food anymore.

KC native
09-21-2009, 03:13 PM
It's nice to not have to worry about national defense, innit?

:rolleyes: We spend an absurd amount of money on our national defense. We could reduce that spending slightly and still not have to worry about any other nation.

wild1
09-21-2009, 03:25 PM
Yes, it is supplementary. But, of course, the next logical question is: Why do they need a supplement?

Remember the heat wave a few years ago where tens of thousands of people died in France?

Let me say that again. In a modern, first world country with communist health care, 15,000 people died from a HEAT WAVE.

There were complicating factors like doctors being on furlough, and the government not calling them back as a cost saving measure, don't recall all the details, but everyone can do their own homework.

Just think about that.

KC native
09-21-2009, 03:26 PM
Remember the heat wave a few years ago where tens of thousands of people died in France?

Let me say that again. In a modern, first world country with communist health care, 15,000 people died from a HEAT WAVE.

There were complicating factors like doctors being on furlough, and the government not calling them back as a cost saving measure, don't recall all the details, but everyone can do their own homework.

Just think about that.

:spock: It couldn't have anything to do with many of them not having air conditioning because they don't normally need it huh?

patteeu
09-21-2009, 03:28 PM
What I find funny about these false choice arguments like this is that they always conveniently leave out France as a good model. France has a single payer system and cutting edge treatments (the first face transplant was performed there).

What I find funny is that you're the 4th person who has demonstrated that he doesn't know what a false choice argument is.

KC native
09-21-2009, 03:30 PM
What I find funny is that you're the 4th person who has demonstrated that he doesn't know what a false choice is.

ROFL Sorry if I and others won't conform to your verbal gymnastics so that you can frame an argument with a false choice.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 03:35 PM
ROFL Sorry if I and others won't conform to your verbal gymnastics so that you can frame an argument with a false choice.

It's OK. Your ridiculous "false choice!" strawman is entertainment enough.

Logic fail.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/8/8/633853575819280280-logicfail.jpg

KC native
09-21-2009, 03:37 PM
It's OK. Your ridiculous "false choice!" strawman is entertainment enough.

Logic fail.

When you present an either or choice that isn't realistic you create the false choice fallacy. The fail is on your side buddy.

HonestChieffan
09-21-2009, 03:42 PM
And France is the answer?

JeeezusPete

patteeu
09-21-2009, 03:42 PM
When you present an either or choice that isn't realistic you create the false choice fallacy. The fail is on your side buddy.

That's simply not true. Not all either/or choices are false choice arguments. Your arrogance/ignorance combo is endearing, but it's the kind of deal where the charm fades as you grow up so you probably should work on it.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 03:47 PM
It's really quite amazing to me that so many people have been defensive about this question. I definitely didn't expect it. I'll have to give some thought to what it means about you guys.

KC native
09-21-2009, 04:02 PM
That's simply not true. Not all either/or choices are false choice arguments. Your arrogance/ignorance combo is endearing, but it's the kind of deal where the charm fades as you grow up so you probably should work on it.

You're poll is perfect example of a false choice. You propose two options, one going back in time and freezing prices and one is what we have now. What about going back to 1994 and then freezing prices or how about 1991, or 1997? Why bright line 1989? Also, if we go back to 1989, do you think it is reasonable to assume that medicine would be stuck in perpetuity if we went back to 1989? Again, your argument is based upon a false either/or choice and thus it is a logical fallacy.

VAChief
09-21-2009, 04:11 PM
How about a third question..."In 5 years will you be able to afford paying 20 times what you pay today for coverage?"

Stewie
09-21-2009, 05:12 PM
JFC, quit making up definitions. INFLATION IS A RISE IN GENERAL PRICE LEVELS. THE CAUSE CAN BE FROM MONETARY PHENOMENA, COST PRESSURES, OR INCREASED DEMAND.

How do "cost pressures" or "demand" create inflation? That makes no sense. If that were the case Zimbabwe has hyperinflation because people are buying too many goods. Those people are flat busted.

wild1
09-21-2009, 05:56 PM
You're poll is perfect example of a false choice. You propose two options, one going back in time and freezing prices and one is what we have now. What about going back to 1994 and then freezing prices or how about 1991, or 1997? Why bright line 1989? Also, if we go back to 1989, do you think it is reasonable to assume that medicine would be stuck in perpetuity if we went back to 1989? Again, your argument is based upon a false either/or choice and thus it is a logical fallacy.

The point of the "false choice" humor is that the phrase is just a catch-all for anytime someone asks a proponent of communist health care to explain how it's feasible that everyone can get everything for nothing.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 08:25 PM
You're poll is perfect example of a false choice. You propose two options, one going back in time and freezing prices and one is what we have now. What about going back to 1994 and then freezing prices or how about 1991, or 1997? Why bright line 1989? Also, if we go back to 1989, do you think it is reasonable to assume that medicine would be stuck in perpetuity if we went back to 1989? Again, your argument is based upon a false either/or choice and thus it is a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy because it's not an argument. The argument is something you've created in your own, overly-defensive mind. It's a poll question asking you about your preference between two different options. It may or may not tell us something about what you think, but it doesn't and was never intended to "prove" a point. So no, not only is it not a "perfect example" of a false choice, it's not a false choice at all.

BTW, the bright line at 1989 is really just an arbitrary choice that I made because 20 years seemed like a long enough time to illustrate the fact that healthcare quality has changed but short enough to be relevant to most Planeteers. Nothing more, nothing less.

patteeu
09-21-2009, 08:30 PM
How about a third question..."In 5 years will you be able to afford paying 20 times what you pay today for coverage?"

That's a good question to ask. I think the answer to both my question and your question is that rationing (limited resource allocation) is inevitable. Which brings us to the question of how we want that rationing to take place. Do we want a government "death panel" making all the decisions or do we want the market to allocate the resources or is there a third way?

chiefzilla1501
09-21-2009, 08:30 PM
Here's a health care plan for you...
Put the ****ing donut down!

There. That's $900 billion saved. Do I get a cut of that?

jiveturkey
09-21-2009, 09:29 PM
That's a good question to ask. I think the answer to both my question and your question is that rationing (limited resource allocation) is inevitable. Which brings us to the question of how we want that rationing to take place. Do we want a government "death panel" making all the decisions or do we want the market to allocate the resources or is there a third way?

If you've ever ventured to a grocery store during the day you'd be as hopeful as I am that death panels become a reality. All women over 65 should be put to sleep. Or there should be a $500 billion government program that trains these elderly space wastes to get their coupons ready and start writing their ancient check while the person in front of them is checking out. Waiting until they get the total is immediate death.

:D

Velvet_Jones
09-21-2009, 11:58 PM
What would happen if Obama actually bullet-pointed and idea instead of speaking in platitudes – like this:

1 - You should be able to afford insurance.
2 - You should be able to buy insurance from any company in any state and the rules of that policy in that state is extraterritorial (applies regardless of what state you live in).
3 - Tort reform is extraterritorial. An example of tort reform is ‘the state where you bought insurance in says this’ – doesn’t matter what state you live in. The insurance policies issued in each state already have the previsions and limitations as specified by each state.
4 - Premium expenses are based on state mandated benefits and the tort laws of that state
5 - You need to treat insurance as insuring a catastrophic and semi-catastrophic illness instead of a way to get you normal healthcare expenses paid for.
6 - State department of insurance have a federal liaison arbitrator that “Helps” determine legal language differences.

What this brings to the table is as follows:

1 – The rules for each state that an insurance company is doing business in is a known quantity. This will not be an issue for insurance companies because they have a defined geographic area based on the states that they do business in. State legislation and DOI rules are controlled by the state. If they are stupid – people won’t buy insurance in that state. Puts the incentive in the right place.
2 – The consumer can shop based on those rules – granted – there will be another industry created to do a state by state rule comparison.
3 – This will promote equalization of coverage because competition has been introduced into the system.
4 – Promote HSAs which automatically makes the consumer engaged in their healthcare expenses. The only hurdle what method – tool to use to fund the HSA personal fund – which – normally is fully funded after 3 years in the plan.
5 – People would have a vested interest in the using the healthcare system when it is necessary instead of when it is convenient.
6 – Makes the states have to compete with each other for insurance business and therefore will lax the mandatory coverage of certain procedures like a physical exam - or a normal office visit because you got a sniffle. The states have screwed there selves on this topic.

Saggysack
09-22-2009, 01:02 AM
Another vote for modern healthcare.

Not exactly.

There have been many declines in healthcare.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2009, 01:11 AM
Not exactly.

There have been many declines in healthcare.

Like what?


Oh and how ya' durrin' saggy?

Saggysack
09-22-2009, 01:17 AM
Like what?


Oh and how ya' durrin' saggy?

Well, the most obvious would be the decline in coverage.

There are too many things to consider before leaning one way or the other.

Rausch
09-22-2009, 01:51 AM
Healthcare is like a College education: if you want it you can get it but doing so might put you in debt for decades.

90% of problems people have can be taken care of by a doctor/ER visit. No, that's not cheap but it CAN be done.

The problem is when you get cancer or some other illness that requires many treatments and medications...

patteeu
09-22-2009, 07:44 AM
Well, the most obvious would be the decline in coverage.

There are too many things to consider before leaning one way or the other.

:spock: That's what you consider a "decline in healthcare"?

That seems a little like saying that cars aren't as good as they used to be because the road in front of your house has more potholes.

patteeu
09-22-2009, 07:45 AM
What would happen if Obama actually bullet-pointed and idea instead of speaking in platitudes – like this:

1 - You should be able to afford insurance.
2 - You should be able to buy insurance from any company in any state and the rules of that policy in that state is extraterritorial (applies regardless of what state you live in).
3 - Tort reform is extraterritorial. An example of tort reform is ‘the state where you bought insurance in says this’ – doesn’t matter what state you live in. The insurance policies issued in each state already have the previsions and limitations as specified by each state.
4 - Premium expenses are based on state mandated benefits and the tort laws of that state
5 - You need to treat insurance as insuring a catastrophic and semi-catastrophic illness instead of a way to get you normal healthcare expenses paid for.
6 - State department of insurance have a federal liaison arbitrator that “Helps” determine legal language differences.

What this brings to the table is as follows:

1 – The rules for each state that an insurance company is doing business in is a known quantity. This will not be an issue for insurance companies because they have a defined geographic area based on the states that they do business in. State legislation and DOI rules are controlled by the state. If they are stupid – people won’t buy insurance in that state. Puts the incentive in the right place.
2 – The consumer can shop based on those rules – granted – there will be another industry created to do a state by state rule comparison.
3 – This will promote equalization of coverage because competition has been introduced into the system.
4 – Promote HSAs which automatically makes the consumer engaged in their healthcare expenses. The only hurdle what method – tool to use to fund the HSA personal fund – which – normally is fully funded after 3 years in the plan.
5 – People would have a vested interest in the using the healthcare system when it is necessary instead of when it is convenient.
6 – Makes the states have to compete with each other for insurance business and therefore will lax the mandatory coverage of certain procedures like a physical exam - or a normal office visit because you got a sniffle. The states have screwed there selves on this topic.

Good suggestions.

patteeu
09-22-2009, 07:49 AM
Healthcare is like a College education: if you want it you can get it but doing so might put you in debt for decades.

90% of problems people have can be taken care of by a doctor/ER visit. No, that's not cheap but it CAN be done.

The problem is when you get cancer or some other illness that requires many treatments and medications...

What if we had a system that resulted in affordable care for all at 1989 levels of care and that people with means could spend more to get coverage at 1999 or 2009 levels of care? Would that be an acceptable form of universal coverage?

Saggysack
09-22-2009, 08:35 AM
:spock: That's what you consider a "decline in healthcare"?

That seems a little like saying that cars aren't as good as they used to be because the road in front of your house has more potholes.



If you would have taken the time to notice I clearly stated "There are too many things to consider before leaning one way or the other."

Sorry bud, your question is quite simplistic that fails to address the many variables that encompass healthcare. The answer isn't quite as simple as you would like to make it out to be.

patteeu
09-22-2009, 09:10 AM
If you would have taken the time to notice I clearly stated "There are too many things to consider before leaning one way or the other."

Sorry bud, your question is quite simplistic that fails to address the many variables that encompass healthcare. The answer isn't quite as simple as you would like to make it out to be.

What are you talking about? What things would you have to consider before you could make this simple choice? The answer really is as simple as I'm making it out to be. Maybe you just don't understand the question? :shrug:

Here's the full complexity of the right answer (IMO): If I could afford 2009 healthcare, that's what I'd want (hence, my vote for the 2nd option). If I could only afford 1989 healthcare, I'd be happy to have at least that, but it wouldn't have been my first choice if money wasn't an issue.