What matters is the concept of a government "panel." Right now, if I want a hip replacement, it's between me and my doctor; the government does not have a seat at the table. The minute it does, my hip's needs are subordinate to national hip policy, which in turn is subordinate to macro budgetary considerations.Mark Steyn, have you always been a moron, or did you have to work at it?
Right now, if you want a hip replacement, it's between you, your doctor, and your insurance company. 1) The insurance company must first approve of your need to get a hip replacement (presumably to stop you from wistfully eyeing that new designer, rocket-propelled Nike hip even when you don't need a new one). If they don't approve it after examining your medical records and talking to your doctor, you're out of luck buddy. Pony up the $40,000 you'll need to pay for it yourself. 2) If they did approve it (because, you know, they're compassionate and all), you and your family must think about your insurance deductible and whether you can afford the $3,000 copay at this time--i.e., your insurance company indirectly has a seat at your kitchen table because they wrote the rules for your policy. 3)Perhaps you could only afford a catastrophic health coverage policy...you would be exploring the possibility of "falling down the stairs" so that you could be rushed to the ER and get some treatment there. Again, the insurance company is a factor.
Nothing is "just" between you and your doctor. Health care is rationed to those that can afford the insurance premiums. Even when you have a policy, someone else reviews your major health treatment decisions with you and your doctor and your family. Whether that's my insurance company or the government, I'm not sure which is worse, but I certainly don't think of one as better than another. Besides, I already trust my government to secure my liberty, so if they want to secure my toothless gums, I don't give a crap.
All that is assuming you have insurance to begin with! If you're too poor to afford it, and/or you work for a company that can no longer afford to pay for your coverage because of crazily escalating premium costs, you're out of luck. Now, maybe Mark Steyn can afford to simply write a check for his brand new Nike hip. Maybe he doesn't even need insurance. In that case, I'm thrilled for him. Most everyone else depends on having health insurance, thank you very much.
None of this means that I'm anti-insurance companies. They aren't the devil incarnate, they're just looking to make sure they stay profitable. They're just businesses, which is why it's weird to me that folks like Steyn would waste time talking about how the current system is more compassionate! What's compassionate about a system where you can't be covered for a pre-existing condition? What's compassionate about a system where if you lost your coverage for a few months because your company went bankrupt and you couldn't afford the astronomical COBRA payments to keep your policy active, any new policy would automatically exclude any disease you had been getting treatment on until then?
I think Mark Steyn, by opposing any change to our currently perfect system, is essentially saying that those who can't afford health insurance need to...wait for it...buy insurance!!! If that isn't the pinnacle of elitism, I don't know what is.
Posts
18 comments:
"Right now, if you want a hip replacement, it's between you, your doctor, and your insurance company."
Yes, but you can choose your insurance company (well, sometimes it is imposed by your employer and this should be changed).
"I think Mark Steyn, by opposing any change to our currently perfect system, is essentially saying..."
And I think Mark Steyn hardly needs an obscure blogger to tell anyone what he is essentially saying...we just read his actual words. But as blatant and shameless an attempt at being linked as his "reader of the day" as I've yet seen...and for that (and for at least having good taste in football teams), I congratulate you.
@Luc: My only point was to dispute Mark Steyn's assertion that decisions are purely between a person and their doctor.
You should also link back to Mark's UK horror stories from socialized medicine -- poor service, poor care, and limited options. A private/public model is likely best, but only if you privatize the public aspect of it.
"Now, maybe Mark Steyn can afford to simply write a check for his brand new Nike hip..." - in which case, it IS purely between him and his doctor.
Moron, Work at it, Always Been
Pot, Kettle, Raj
Well, except that one is going to get that new hip much sooner through a U.S. insurance company than through the Canadian (or any European) government health service.
That sounds good to me.
And why do we have these insurance co's in the 1st place? Because the cost of medical care is (or is perceived as being) beyond the reach of most people. Why is that?
The answer is gov't regulation, starting with the medical practice acts and the FDA, in which the gov't pretends to be competent to tell you who is a good doctor, and which medicines are safe/effective enough to be worth taking. In so doing, the supply of medical care is reduced, and the cost of supplying it is increased. Guess what that does to cost? Go ahead, take your time...
So, the solution being proposed is...more gov't intervention! Yeah, that should do it. Good thinking.
I think Mark Steyn is aware that men in insurance companies have a role in these decisions. However, some of us think private men in companies are more tractable by other private men in companies, than are the men in public bureaus who may displace them.
If we learn over time that an insurance company does not pay for good care, we may urge our own company to find new insurance. If we learn over time that the rulers and administrators do not pay for good care, we will be judged treasonous if we urge our companions to find a new government.
If we are treated badly by private men, we may have recourse to the laws and to disinterested judges. If we are treated badly by men in public offices, we may similarly have recourse to laws and disinterested judges, but this is more doubtful.
And again, if we become altogether dissatisfied with private insurance, we can seek to have the government replace it, as some of the Americans presently seek. However, if the government displaces a mature industry such as insurance, and we become altogether dissatisfied with the government, we will not have recourse to a mature insurance industry. There are some mistakes one may make only once.
The point is that Mark CAN get a hip replacement, even if he has to pay out of pocket for it. Once all doctors and hospitals are run by the government, you won't be able to get a hip replacement if your friendly bureaucrat doesn't approve it no matter who pays for it.
You will not be able to pay a surgeon $40,000 to perform a hip replacement because accepting private funds for a non-permitted operation will be illegal. After all, why should some rich dude get better medical care just 'cause he can pay for it?
Q: Where was Steyn "talking about how the current system is more compassionate"?
A: Nowhere. It's only liberals who think that anyone is impressed with their fake "compassion" tournaments. What is "compassionate" about forcing your fellow citizens to pay for your problems? Nothing, of course. When liberals say "compassion", they really mean getting their way AND crowing about their moral superiority simultaneously--the ultimate liberal twofer.
For that matter, Steyn doesn't even talk about the "current system". To the extent things actually work currently, it is precisely where there is no "system", no centrally administered government bureau of We-Know-What's-Right-For-You-Better-Than-You-Do.
"What's compassionate about a system where you can't be covered for a pre-existing condition?" you ask?
Compassion isn't the issue, common sense is. If insurance companies were required to insure those with pre-existing conditions, people would simply go without insurance until they had a health problem, then get insurance to pay for treatment, and cancel their policies once they were cured. Until every insurance company went bankrupt, of course (which is the eventual goal of all this - don't kid yourself).
So you're not 'anti-insurance companies'? You need to think this through, then re-evaluate your definition of 'compassion', IMO.
Thank you all for the counterpoints.
Mark's "UK horror stories" are silly, not because they are or aren't true, but because the UK folks still get better health outcomes for their money. To say that our system is the best in the face of the fact that we are less healthy than most other industrialized countries is ludicrous.
@Cosmo: So your point is that sick people who can't get insurance are out of luck? Nice. Btw, those people will probably go to an ER and cost you and me money anyway.
As for Anonymous' point that under a government-run system no one will be able to get a new hip even if they're willing to pay more, I'm not impressed. In the UK, you can still buy private insurance for better care if you don't want to go to the NHS. Wanna guess how many enterprising capitalists will line up to offer premium packages (pun intended)? And no, I have no problem with rich people getting better care. I'm more concerned that lower and middle class people get some level of care at all. See this article for a primer on the NHS: www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html
The best point I've heard so far is that once you let the government into something, they're there to stay, so you don't get to say oops. Yes, that's my understanding of conservatism and where I'm coming from. But, let us discuss facts and options and not resort to knee-jerk opinions like, "do you want the government doing this or that?" or "our system is the best in the world". IMO that is just a cop out, substituting conventional wisdom for deliberate thought. Hence my original post on Mark's comment. I've heard much more thoughtful arguments (for the most part) here than the gibberish on The Corner.
"because the UK folks still get better health outcomes for their money."
Every factual analysis of data says otherwise. Here's a great place to start: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649. You can also do some research on the 'life expectancy' canard, and here's a great place to start: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/08/20/turns-out-us-healthcare-system-is-actually-like-really-good/
The reason you folks are losing this debate is because we have all the facts, and all you have is empty emotional rhetoric. Considering it was empty emotional rhetoric that led to the heavy-handed government involvement currently destroying American health care, nobody wants to hear it.
Were you always a factually-challenged bleeding heart, or did you have to work at it?
Nice one, Anon.
Unfortunately, I find those links less than stellar (we're depending on opinion polls now?). If we're spending far more of our GDP to get less than the very best in bottom line results (except for cancer where I agree with you), isn't there something wrong? You're answer is probably that we need less regulation to reduce costs. I'd like to see some data (not anecdotes) on that before I buy that.
My point is that the right has based their objections on emotional anecdotes and the fear of government and by disparaging other systems where the govt is involved. So far, pretty shallow. The left has said (I agree), all you need is government. Not very convincing but not frightening to me. But let's knock one objection off the list...that about the crappy Euro systems. I prefer Foreign Policy's take: www.foreignpolicy.com/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_about_global_healthcare
Thanks dude.
Every single entitlement program that the government administers is promptly run right into the ground. They can't even get cash for clunkers right. There is zero chance that they will give us better care at more affordable prices. It's not left or right, just common sense.
"Unfortunately, I find those links less than stellar"
Well, of course you do - because they rebut your point factually, and you want to argue squishy 'moral' issues.
"we're depending on opinion polls now"
Does it not shame you that you have to resort to lying? The '10 Surprising Facts' article points to real studies done by such publications as Lancet. The life-expectancy rebuttal uses real life-expectancy figures.
"If we're spending far more of our GDP"
This is yet another canard. We spend more of our GDP _because_ of government involvement (Medicare alone used 3.2% of GDP in 2008!) and because we fund the innovation that drives the socialized medicine markets of the rest of the world.
"My point is that the right has based their objections on emotional anecdotes and the fear of government"
Nonsense. I supplied you with two articles listing FACTUAL reasons why our health care system is equal- or superior-to socialized systems.
And why is it that listing problems with socialized systems - which are rampant - is 'emotional', but listing problems with our system is perfectly valid reasoning?
'Fear of government' is quite healthy and rational. It was the basis of the formation of this country, and any sane analysis of our health care system will show that government is the problem. More government is obviously not the solution.
Your link is dead, but I would love to know - how can factual stories of problems with the European/Canadian medical systems be 'outrageous lies'?
Moved discussion to new post: http://www.eatsblogsandleaves.com/2009/08/our-health-care-system-is-best.html
"Cosmo: So your point is that sick people who can't get insurance are out of luck?"
There you go again, saying the writers point is something it's not. My point is that forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions makes no sense, and will eventually destroy the private insurance industry, at which point we will ALL be out of luck.
And it's not tough for the majority of people without insurance, who will either have insurance again soon, or who choose to be without it (CHOOSE, as in freedom). Those who can't afford it have many other avenues besides the federal governmnet.
Post a Comment