Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

A quick Google search shows approx 2200 heart transplants/year in the US. Your 3000 figure is not far fetched when you consider how many people aren't getting checked regularly.

Canada, who has universal healthcare has approx 160 heart transplants/year.

To put that in perspective, Canada's population is about 11% of the US population. Our heart transplant as a percentage of population is .00000476. The US is .0000703. Almost 50% more likely to be required.


Edited, Mar 31st 2012 8:17am by Uglysasquatch

That is bull **** triple stacks here are almost 6 bucks.

That's three bucks worth of taxes to pay for your heart transplants.

Better than he's doing with Hispanics nationwide. 14% -- Hooray!

I'm not really sure what I want to quote of your Pigtails, but that'll do I think, since all that writing and stuff spurred me thinking.

Anyway, just a random observation. I don't know if it's just this country or what, but people I wonder how well we can make rational decisions about there health around here. Not that we're panicky idiots or anything, but somehow assigning a monetary value to something like your mental well-being, your hearing, the life of your family member, or even yourself isn't something that I think gets done remarkably well. There's such a scale of what people are willing to pay for here, and how much they're willing to pay. There's not always much great logic behind it all the time. Some will take full advantage of that, others tend to undervalue things. One's health can be an emotional issue in many cases, and it makes it really easy for things to end up way over or under priced.

Anyway, just my random thought of the day.

I just don't see that as a rational argument. Thanks to the internet, we have great resources in being able to ask people from other countries around the world, how they like their healthcare. I have never seen a single person say that they were denied health care because the government found it unnecessary. I know in the UK at least, there do tend to be waiting lists for surgeries that aren't life threatening. Honestly, if I'm not having to pay for that surgery directly out of my own pocket (because yes, I recognize that universal health care isn't free), I wouldn't mind waiting a year or two if it wasn't life threatening.

As it stands right now, I have two surgeries I could stand to have, but I probably won't any time soon because I can't afford it. My right leg is an inch longer than my left leg, which causes my entire spine, hips and knees to go out of alignment. I was supposed to have surgery to fix this when I was 17. I originally saw a doctor about this problem when I was 11, and when I saw him again five years later to see if I still needed the surgery, he said I looked fine and sent me on my way. Then when I turned 20, I started having back problems, which I still have today. In combination with that particular issue, I also have very little arch in my foot. I used to be completely flat footed and pigeon toed, but wearing orthopedic inserts in my shoes while growing up helped remedy those issues for the most part. As a result of my back problems, I can't do very much physical labor, otherwise I'm in intense pain the next day and for several days after. Not that I want to do physical labor, but it would have been nice to be able to get a job as a housekeeper for a hotel - I would have gotten a job here a couple months sooner. So I could really use surgery to fix my leg/back issues, and LASIK surgery would be nice too so I don't have to deal with stupid contacts and glasses for another 15 years or so. Do I need either of these surgeries? No, not really. But they could vastly improve the quality of my life.

I am of the opinion, that it's a good idea to watch how other people do things, and if it works for them, to try doing it that way myself. Our country seems to suffer from this obsessive need to be different than the rest of the world, and I don't think it is to our benefit. Now, I am all for individuality and being different. But being different just for the sake of being different, especially when it is harmful to yourself, is just stupid. I mean really, why don't we use the metric system? We're the only country in the world who does not use the metric system (at least to my knowledge), and it's annoying. I don't like having to look up conversion rates for temperatures, weights, distances, etc. when I'm talking to someone from a different country, that way I know what they're talking about. Our units of measurement don't even make any logical sense, where as the metric system does make sense. A centimeter is 1/100th of a meter and cent = 100. A kilometer is 1000 meters and kilo = 1000. Easy peasy. Inches, feet, none of that makes any sort of logical sense. Hell, a foot doesn't even equal a foot for everyone! My feet sure as hell aren't 12 inches long. Our units of measurement aren't a big deal, it's just one of those little things that irks me when I think about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really not an America hater. I do love my country, and for a lot of reasons, I'm glad to have been born here. However, for a lot of reasons, I wish I had been born in Canada, or the UK or another country where people are generally healthier and happier.

Remember, that I'm addressing an argument that says "We're not implementing universal health care, just a single payer system so that everyone has coverage". So the actual health care providers (hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc) remain exactly as they are (and many are for-profit), but now the government will step in and pay for anyone's health bill. This creates a system where the government is paying the bill, but a private provider is setting the price. Of course the price will go up.

As I said, the only way the government can prevent costs from going up dramatically is to take pretty direct control of the whole industry (ie: socialized medicine). But that's exactly the type of system which most people in the US do not want. So it's valid to point out that the only way for the direction the Dems are taking us with regard to health care to work is the very system people don't want and which the Dems (publicly at least) insist they aren't forcing on us.



Which is socialized medicine. The seller of a good should be allowed to sell it for whatever the market will bear. Having the government step in and say "You can only charge X for that because our bureaucrats determined that was the fair price" is a gross violation of the basic principles of liberty we're supposed to enjoy. Of course, the problem is the slippery slope aspect to this. You start by the government mandating what care must be provided. This causes costs to rise, so the government steps in to "help out" by covering the costs. But this creates a "free money" condition in the free market parts of the system, causing prices to rise even more. The government then responds by putting price controls on the health care, which will effectively drive any remaining free market parts out of the system because the government can set the prices so low that only government run hospitals and clinics (funded with taxpayer dollars) can afford to run at a loss.

One step inevitably leads to the next. So it's very fair to point at the public dislike of socialized systems and ask if there's a better way. And that better way is *less* government regulation, not more.



Cost comparisons to right now, which is not really a free market system. As I pointed out earlier, our current system is already being heavily regulated and mandated. Either direction will reduce costs, but one involves more direct government control, and the other less. I think that most people in the US would rather have less.



I think that's a bit of monetary sleight of hand though. Think about it. Right now, if you are uninsured but need care, you can go to a hospital and get it. If you are unable to pay for the cost, the state will pick up the tab. So right now, we have a system where the taxpayer will pay for the care for those who can't pay for it themselves. That's the 4% number you talk about. But the mandate will now require that everyone have health insurance. But there's no magic that makes more people able to pay for it, right? So the same number of people will still be uninsured, we're just changing what we call it when the government pays for their care.

The biggest side effect of this though is that now the government picks up the tab for anyone who can't afford insurance, not just for those who can't afford the health care. There are many people who are today struggling to maintain their health insurance, but who will fall under the income level to qualify for the "free" insurance from the government. Those people will automatically stop paying for insurance and let the government do it. So while technically the number of insured hasn't changed, the number who are being paid for with tax dollars instead of their own income has increased. Additionally, the bill just sets a $1500/year fine for not buying health insurance. Well, that's less than the cost for most insurance right now, so most people will just drop their insurance and pay the fine instead.

The net effect is that people who would have had to pay for their own health care (either because they had insurance, or had sufficient money to pay out of pocket if/when they purchased care), will now be paid for by tax dollars. In fact, most people will. So if we change the question from "what percentage have their own health insurance" to "what percentage are having their health care paid for by the taxpayer", that number will increase dramatically.



Do you think that this problem is made better or worse when the government mandates that everyone must purchase health insurance? Can't you see that the best solution to providers of a good or service doing a bad job is to maximize the ability of the consumers to choose someone else? Right now our regulations make switching insurance companies very difficult if not impossible. Consumers are "stuck" with what they have. And when that's the case, the seller can take advantage of it.

Make it a real free market and insurance companies will fall over themselves to provide what the consumers want. And those who fail to do so will go out of business. That's how the free market works. When was the last time you paid $1500 for a TV from a store and then had the store refuse to give you the TV you just paid for? Doesn't happen, does it? Want to know why? Because if they did, no one would buy anything from them. How long would Amazon last if they just shipped the covers of the books you purchased to you and not the full book you paid for? Not very long, right?

That's how the free market works. And it's incredibly good at ensuring that consumers get the best product possible for the lowest price. It's only when you are at the extreme ends that this fails. Either an unchecked monopoly or too much government involvement can cause those market forces to fail. What you're seeing in the health care system in the US is absolutely because of too much government. It's just that it's happened so slowly and over a period of time likely longer than your lifetime that you didn't really notice it. To you, that's just the way it's always been.

But it hasn't always been that way. We used to have a system where pretty much anyone could afford basic medical care, and insurance for more expensive care was far far more affordable. We should move back in that direction IMO.



Correct. Which is why we need to move back to a system which has less government involvement so that those free market mechanisms will work as they should.



Yup. And that high price is driven by the fact that most people are going to be paying with their insurance. If everyone had to pay for that out of their pockets, do you think they'd charge $1500? It might be expensive, but not so amazingly so. This is a tricky case because it's on the edge of what might be covered via insurance anyway. There are a number of much more clear cut cases where direct care should be relatively inexpensive, but is very pricey. It should *never* cost $100 or more just for 10 minutes of a doctors time. Yet that's pretty much the going rate now.



I disagree. I think that the direct costs would be less obvious so you'd think you're getting a better deal. Universal health care hides the cost from the consumer, and in my opinion that's never a good idea.



That's not really a free choice though. A free choice involves the buyer choosing where to spend his money. If the government takes the money from you (in the form of taxes, or fees, or mandates) to pay for item X, no amount of saying "you're free to buy item Y instead" actually makes that a real choice.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 6:10pm by gbaji

So much worse than the guardian angels at Aetna, Humana or Blue Cross.

Yes. Because if those people don't deliver a service that's worth the cost, their customers (in an actual free market) can choose not to buy their service. But if the government mandates that you must buy their service, you have no choice. And if the government charges you automatically (in the form of taxes or fees) you also don't have a choice to buy the service.


If a store owner knows that you are required by law to buy something in his store, what motivation does he have to keep the price competitive? Hell. There is no such thing as competitive anymore. The entire principle behind breaking up monopolies rests on the assumption that in the absence of real competition, the provider of a good or service can charge more than he could otherwise. We have whole sections of our law dedicated to ensuring that no single provider gains too much control of a given industry specifically to avoid this.


But we think that "single payer" is a good idea? Why? It makes no sense at all.

Please be so kind as to direct me to this magical fairyland. I need eye surgery that will cost at least 12K$ and diagnosis and treatment for the underlying cause. NO DOCTOR CLINIC OR HOSPITAL will do anything for me without either cash up front or insurance. I have neither. I will go untreated. Period.

Obviously you just need to go to the emergency room since that's what Gbaji is referring to. Of course, by "the state will pick up the tab", Gbaji means we'll all pay vastly inflated costs for people using the emergency room as a general practitioner's office and that person will be hounded by bill collectors for the cost and have their credit ruined when they can't pay. Oh, and the hospital will suffer under the missing money for a good long while since the state doesn't just cut them a check that day -- the hospital needs to put in its time (years) pursuing the bad debt before it can write it off to the state and wait for repayment.

But, yeah, great system we currently have. The sick person's life gets ruined, the hospital suffers and everyone else pays far more than the service was actually worth. Yay! Let's stick with that!

Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 11:27pm by Jophiel