Is it possible to fix healthcare without turning more over to the government?

[Bob]

Well, is it possible? I know that it is a radical question to ask now days. But can we improve healthcare by using the private system, by allowing more private choice? Is it reasonable to have concerns about the on-going shift from private to public control of sectors of the economy?

I think it might be possible, to have real change. Some examples: right now, there are some 1300 healthcare insurance providers in the US. (I got this number on a few sites trying to get the exact number so this may be off by a few hundred.) But the consumer can’t get many of the insurance policies from various companies from state to state. For car insurance one can -- but not healthcare. If the regulations that restricted competition were changed to allow more choice, could that just possibly make a difference?

Another obvious issue, but one the R’s and the D’s don’t want to touch is the number of illegal immigrants that are here and get medical care, if the number of 12 million was reduced to say 1 million, how would that impact costs to most healthcare centers?

Although, I don’t agree with this idea (but it would be better, than what is proposed now.)

If a certain amount was “given” in the form of a voucher to buy healthcare from a private source – to those now targeted to get on the government plan – the number of uninsured would decrease, and the government would not gain additional control.

So, how many more ideas could come from the private system, or could come from it with more freedom, not less.

[Rohirrim]

Could we have stopped the robber barons without the Sherman Act?

[Bob]

Could we have stopped the robber barons without the Sherman Act?

So your answer is no. Are you comparing simular industries, from simular time periods? I'm not saying that having historical context does not have value, but not sure if we are comparing two very different things?

[Mr.Meanie]

This may not be feasible, but an idea would be to somehow restrict any one insurer or group of insurers from having more than a 20% market share in any given market. I think that's where a majority of the problems are coming from is a total lack of competition among insurers.

[Garcia Bronco]

Could we have stopped the robber barons without the Sherman Act?

And yet we staill have the robber barons. And the Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not replace those industries with government control.

[TailgateNut]

Well, is it possible? I know that it is a radical question to ask now days. But can we improve healthcare by using the private system, by allowing more private choice? Is it reasonable to have concerns about the on-going shift from private to public control of sectors of the economy?

I think it might be possible, to have real change. Some examples: right now, there are some 1300 healthcare insurance providers in the US. (I got this number on a few sites trying to get the exact number so this may be off by a few hundred.) But the consumer can’t get many of the insurance policies from various companies from state to state. For car insurance one can -- but not healthcare. If the regulations that restricted competition were changed to allow more choice, could that just possibly make a difference?

Another obvious issue, but one the R’s and the D’s don’t want to touch is the number of illegal immigrants that are here and get medical care, if the number of 12 million was reduced to say 1 million, how would that impact costs to most healthcare centers?

Although, I don’t agree with this idea (but it would be better, than what is proposed now.)

If a certain amount was “given” in the form of a voucher to buy healthcare from a private source – to those now targeted to get on the government plan – the number of uninsured would decrease, and the government would not gain additional control.

So, how many more ideas could come from the private system, or could come from it with more freedom, not less.

NO!

As long as the health care industry, the big pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies have full control of bankrupting us with their greed there is no chance in hell.

[Fedaykin]

As long as the motivating factor for providing insurance is to make a profit, then no, they will never improve. Sick people are not profitable to insure.

[OrangeRising]

John McCains' Presidential campaign proposal of tax credits for medical expenses seemed like a logical approach that wouldn't drain the treasury dollar-for-dollar.

Of course, if you're not paying taxes, then it's a dollar for dollar drain under any plan, if you can call anything we have at the present, a plan.

Not all 12-15 million illegals are seeking free health care, but the unemployed-illegal-indigent burden is often cited as a major component to California's budget problems for example.

The problem I see in the immediate future is that the tax base has fallen through the floor, so any plan, no matter what the President or anyone else says, is heaping more and more on the deficit, debt to China, and future generations.

I agree the health care system has to be reformed. It has to, but laying the bill at the doorstep of the taxpayers and future generations seems to me to be absolutely the wrong thing to do.

[Bob]

NO!

As long as the health care industry, the big pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies have full control of bankrupting us with their greed there is no chance in hell.

Is is possible that some of the problems we see in healthcare is because of government involvement?

There are some proceedures (like Lasik(sp) eye surgury)that are not reimbursed by anyone, including private insurace, and the costs in time do go down -- and market forces work -- when we have so much distance between the customer and service (in terms of payment)

Reagrding drug manufacturers -- I hear you -- drugs costs so much, but so does reasearch to make meds -- is there another country in the world that craetes more new medications in the world? At least part of that is because of evil profit.

[Bob]

As long as the motivating factor for providing insurance is to make a profit, then no, they will never improve. Sick people are not profitable to insure.

You idea is a growing one in popularity, but it does make it right. It might ignore human nature, why not harness numan nature, like the Founders intended? What else would motivate them? What motivates most inventiveness and inventions in America over the past 200 years?

[Fedaykin]

What motivates most inventiveness and inventions in America over the past 200 years?

The desire to find more effective ways to kill people.

[enjolras]

You idea is a growing one in popularity, but it does make it might. It might ignore human nature, why not harness numan nature, like the Founders intended? What else would motivate them? What motivates most inventiveness and inventions in America over the past 200 years?

I wish it was that simple, but it's not. This is a very naive view of capatilism really. The idea that simply turning people loose results in innovation is simply unsupportable.

After all, the biggest innovation of our age (space travel) has largely been created by the governments hand. I recognize that much of the lifting was done by 'private' companies, but they did it under the oversight and bureaucratic oversight of the federal government.

The fact is, incentive is the mother of all invention. In many cases a pure free market creates the best incentive for innovation, but not always. When it comes to health, profit is a very poor incentive indeed. For the same reason private road maintenence is such a folly (after all, it's really more profitable to not fix the roads at all).

[Bob]

I wish it was that simple, but it's not. This is a very naive view of capatilism really. The idea that simply turning people loose results in innovation is simply unsupportable.

After all, the biggest innovation of our age (space travel) has largely been created by the governments hand. I recognize that much of the lifting was done by 'private' companies, but they did it under the oversight and bureaucratic oversight of the federal government.

The fact is, incentive is the mother of all invention. In many cases a pure free market creates the best incentive for innovation, but not always. When it comes to health, profit is a very poor incentive indeed. For the same reason private road maintenence is such a folly (after all, it's really more profitable to not fix the roads at all).

Sure there is nuance. For roads, that is part of interstate commerse and trade, and like defence should be the perview of the Federal government.

I think the reason why we spend so much money, is because we do care about people , and because our care is so advanced. I know, there is debate on this subject, but most new meds come from America, and if healthcare was so great in France the rich here would flock there, when ill, but they dont do they? The richest folks around the world come here -- to me, that has to demonstrate something, but if folks want to believe the WHO, over common sense go ahead.

Communism, ingores the actual human condition -- and is a perverse attempt at forced equal results, when there is unequal effort, ability, and dumb luck on planet earth.

[Bronco Bob]

Is is possible that some of the problems we see in healthcare is because of government involvement?

I'd say it's more lack of involvement by the government. It's Reagan's
mad dash to deregulate everything that's the reason insurance rates
have shot through the roof with no one to answer to.




There are some proceedures (like Lasik(sp) eye surgury)that are not reimbursed by anyone, including private insurace, and the costs in time do go down -- and market forces work -- when we have so much distance between the customer and service (in terms of payment)


Not sure what you are saying here. That's elective surgery.
Should therE be insurance to get a boob job or a penis lengthening too?


Reagrding drug manufacturers -- I hear you -- drugs costs so much, but so does reasearch to make meds -- is there another country in the world that craetes more new medications in the world? At least part of that is because of evil profit.

What about orphan diseases, diseases that are too rare for the drug
companies to make a profit on, so they are never researched?
Isn't that something the government could do?