Re: What Is The Goal?

Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:TO2dnYyUobTrc1jbnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:aIKdnaBRKbzHDFjbnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:QoednQgHLq1ENlnbnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:


"mg" <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1187284090.154849.31240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Aug 11, 3:38 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For those of you who support some sort of Universal health care, what is
your goal? What are you trying to accomplish?





Basically, I think we need to devise some sort of a system where the
middle class doesn't lose everything they have when they run upon a
string of bad luck or hard times.



The ideal Alice in Wonderland world.....




Not really, Jerry. A single payer plan which is tax based would reduce the cost for most. Of course, the wealthy and sundry businesses would pay for the difference, and that might not be so bad. They can afford it.




yes it would, but at what cost?



Whatever the cost would be to provide the service to the population. I thought you would realize that, Jerry.



What I believe is that whenever "someone" else pays for the cost of ANYTHING that we need or want, we have taken the rationing decision out of the hands of the person who needs or wants that product or service, and gave that decision to the one paying the bill.


If that's what you meant by 'cost,' then your choice of words was poor. By implying that there is some 'cost' to the public, you are implying that such is detrimental.


Well, yes I also meant it is detrimental. When cost rise, someone is paying for that increase. I do not know how it cannot be detrimental...

Why is it detrimental to the public? The public's goal is to have the entire public receive the benefit of the service. If a segment of the public does not presently receive the service, but does receive it after such a change is made, kindly explain how that can be 'detrimental.'

However, you should be aware that sometimes real cost( in cold hard currency ) of a good or service( which can be characterized as a necessity ) becomes burdensome to the public at large. Such is medical coverage. Under those circumstances, the role of government is to ease the actual cost burden on individuals, because of the need for the service without affecting their lifestyles by requiring them to make monetary choices. Government does this through the dispensation of of tax levy funds. Since those funds come from a progressive income tax, and a tax on business entities which don't use the services, their contributions reduce the cost for the majority.


Admirable goal, but I would argue the cost is too high....and that the benefit is not sustainable...

Jerry, how can there be ANY cost to the public if the benefit level is made available to all the public when previously such was not the case?

I think that you need to cease using the word 'cost' to apply to both social aspects, which are qualitative, and then dollar amounts, which are quantitative.

True, when Government pays for the service, Government gets to decide the rules. So?


The so is, in this case, the government does and will ration the care they are willing to pay for.

why is that any different from the current circumstances? Insurers also ration care. The only difference, and I do not agree with your assertion that government will 'ration' care, but if so, such rationing will be available to everyone, instead of the population minus the 43.6 million who are uninsured.

What I believe is

that when you do that, then the third party makes the rationing decision, and they do make the rationing decision.


So?


The basic reason why government rations care, is to keep control of their cost growth. But my argument is that raioning is like price controls. It does not work to control prices in the long run. It is a good technique to once in a while control cost in the short term, but never works as a long term solution to the problem...

That also works for private insurers, except their basis for rationing is taking profits out of the system. A far more mercenary and undesirable reason for 'rationing,' wouldn't you say?

What I believe is

when you take the rationing decision away from the person who buys the product or uses the service, you have lost your ability to effectively control prices.


Wrong. When Government controls the entire system, it controls the prices. Under the current system, YOU never get to control the price, since you are paying for the profit of a non-essential middleman. It is a fantasy for you to believe otherwise.


Yes, "if the government controls the "entire system" they can control prices. But the government does not control the "entire system". They would control the "entire system" if they socialized the "entire system", which they are not willing to do.

And what would be wrong with that, Jerry? You throw slogans around, relying on the fallacy of appeal to emotion when you really can't specifically explain why such would be detrimental. Putting a label on it, which you hope will in and of itself be proof of a negative is fallacious reasoning. Fact remains, you have agreed that Government can control costs. Thus your argument regarding dollar costs disappears.

And when you lose your ability to control prices,

prices will rise, and you have no effective means to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak.


Not when they are controlled by a single entity which does not have to profit from them. Prices are more likely to rise under the current 'system.'


I am not sure I understood the comment above....so no comment...

It's very simply, Jerry. You have stated that if Government controls the prices, they will rise. I refuted that by asserting that there can be no rise in prices, since the entire system is controlled by the entity called Government. As such, you effectively have a monopoly on both cost and benefit, which can be controlled.

And since you cannot effectively control

prices, you will either resort to some sort of rationing scheme, or you have to pay for that increase.


Wrong. The initial system will determine which rules it follows.


FACT. When Oregon makes up a list of services they will pay for that means there are services they will not pay for. When Canda caps the total amount they will spend in any one year, that means someone is not going to get the care they need, when they think they need it. When any country has a waiting list (which is a form of rationing), someone is going to get screwed, and perhaps someone is going to die.

Your example agrees with my assertion that the system will decide what rules it will follow. Who is to say that the system will NOT decide to pay for all services?

That third party rationing schemes are

like price controls, they can work in the short term, but they cannot work over a long term.


If such were the case you propose. It isn't.


You need only look at the medical price inflation number for any country that has moved to a third party payment system to see that what I said is true.

Apples and oranges, Jerry. The current system consists of both a fee-for-service basis as well as what schedules third party payers will agree to pay for service. These two systems, superimposed on each other, result in the statistics you cite. A single party payer, which sets prices and costs will negate everything you assert as irrelevant.

And that rationing schemes do not work either,

because like price controls or "imposed" rationing, they do not address the root cause of the problem.


And what would those be, Jerry?


I listed some examples above already....

No, Jerry, you haven't. Sorry. The problem is that there are 43.6 million uninsured individuals. You have said NOTHING about what causes that problem. What you HAVE done is attempt to list excuses which APOLOGIZE for that and continue that status quo.

And since rationing does not work, but

it is the only "tool" that you are willing to use, over time, you resort to more and more rationing. And ratioing means that someone who thinks they want or need the service is not going to get the service when they think they need it. And that over time, you have to impose more and more rationing. In summary, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


Well, Jerry, it does appear that it worked fairly well during WWII. Why do you not believe it will work again? However, since your entire premise is incorrect, we can discard it in its entirety.


I assume you are talking about the price controls that were in place during WWII. I did say that concept like price controls can work for short periods of time....

Why not longer? Besides, I reject your concept of rationing, so it is irrelevant.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Is The Goal?
    ... Not really, Jerry. ... A single payer plan which is tax based would reduce the cost for most. ... What I believe is that whenever "someone" else pays for the cost of ANYTHING that we need or want, we have taken the rationing decision out of the hands of the person who needs or wants that product or service, and gave that decision to the one paying the bill. ... Under the current system, YOU never get to control the price, since you are paying for the profit of a non-essential middleman. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: 2009
    ... Jerry Okamura wrote: ... At the cost of saddling future generations with the bill, ... When congress begins to consider a single payer plan, we'll see the insurance industry trot out Harry and Louise again, in an effort to keep their profits as well as 36 million Americans uninsured. ... All you need to do is look at a country like Canada, which does have a single payer system to know that. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: What Is The Goal?
    ... A single payer plan which is tax based would reduce the cost for most. ... What I believe is that whenever "someone" else pays for the cost of ANYTHING that we need or want, we have taken the rationing decision out of the hands of the person who needs or wants that product or service, and gave that decision to the one paying the bill. ... The basic reason why government rations care, is to keep control of their cost growth. ... Under the current system, YOU never get to control the price, since you are paying for the profit of a non-essential middleman. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Medical Price Inflation vs CPI
    ... CPI MCPI CPI MCPI MCPI/CPI ... Jerry, it's interesting to plot the cost of healthcare against the ... and I pay them for that service. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Medical Price Inflation vs CPI
    ... Jerry, it's interesting to plot the cost of healthcare against the ... for medical care. ... Kaiser being only one of many -- all ...
    (soc.retirement)