The Republican philosophy on health care

[gorfle]

So yesterday on Digg I saw some article about the leaked briefing for the GOP by some well-known pollster/researcher guy, who was basically telling them how to frame their message.

He was saying that the Republicans need to frame the health care argument by saying that the Democrats want the government to take over health care and that it could not be effective since it would be a bureaucracy and limit your health care options by having politicians decide what treatments would be covered.

To me the counter to this argument is so simple it's astonishing that anyone would take up the proposed Republican position.

If I have to choose between politicians managing my insurance plan and choosing what treatments they will pay for, or a corporation who's out to fuck me over for a dollar managing my insurance plan and choosing what treatments they will pay for, I'll choose the former, thanks.

The only way to tackle health care costs and affordability in this country is to take the profit motive out of insurance. Anyone should be able to buy extra, private insurance if they can afford it, but everyone should be covered by the government plan.

[Old Coot]

1. Agreed. But that isn't going to happen...

with the Republicans and the insurance lobby having so much input in the decision making process.

The administration is not in favor of any plan which would result in everyone in the country being covered by some plan. Everyone should have a health plan.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. we have to join the movement, healthcare is #1 issue now

See this link which is the number one recommended thread today.

There is a movement for single payer, we just need to join it.

The US is one of the few developed countries that doesn't have single payer,
and frankly, even if congress doesn't care about us, then they ought to think
about how US businesses can't compete with other countries because of our system.

[Warpy]

3. "Pray you don't get sick."

That's Republican health care for those of us who aren't either wealthy or in Congress.

Those of us who have health insurance are there to ensure the corporation's profits by not needing actual care, ever.

[Old Coot]

4. An example of corporations limiting health care:

My employer, starting this year, no longer covers colonoscopies. Period.

This is ironic since the employer heavily promotes prevention as a way of limiting health insurance pay outs. The thought is that if conditions are prevented or caught early, the cost to the corporation will be less.

All employees and their spouses (or domestic partners) must take part in wellness plans by giving blood samples and answering health questions. Anyone who refuses is denied coverage under the health plan. I have to go yearly to be examined by an employer provided nurse for recording of weight, body fat, blood pressure, etc and am given a limited stress test.

My employer goes to all of this trouble and expense at finding conditions which might be expensive, if left untreated, but refuses to allow (under insurance) a potentially life saving procedure.

I also have Medicare coverage. It, on the other hand, allows a colonoscopy every 10 years. Unfortunately, I need one every 5 years.

My employer eliminated the EPO health plan we had previously belonged to which had no deductibles and low co-pays. Instead, I am now enrolled in a plan with a high deductible. The plan is described as consumerist in that as a consumer I will make health care decisions based on what I can afford rather than using services provided under a low co-pay. This is intended to reduce health care costs. My new plan cost me half of what the old plan cost (as far as my monthly premium is concerned). I would rather have the more comprehensive plan and pay the price for the premium difference. However, my employer made the decision for me.

As a result of these two changes I have two procedures which need to be performed, but am unable to afford. Either procedure could find or prevent cancer. I am left in the position of not knowing what to do. The upside is that if I do get cancer, the insurance will cover after the deductible.

[droidamus2]

5. Real Republican Philosophy

Bottom line the Republican philosophy is what it is on everything else 'the free market will take care of it'. As an ideal the 'free-market'/supply and demand idea might seem like it sould work. The idea being companies will get into a business if there is enough demand. If there is enough demand it makes the product or service scarce then prices will rise. If the prices rise enough other players will enter the game to provide more of the product or service and thus push prices down. Of course this all presupposes that all the players play by the rules that theoretical economists think they should play by. In the real world of American style capitalism it doesn't come that close to the ideal especially without government regulation. Corporations or groups of corporations will monopolize resources, lobby for rules that make it hard for others to enter the business and loosely conspire to fix prices (no smokey back rooms just a nod and a wink to what the price should be). Corporations including those in health care are much more likely these days to set a profit target and supply/demand be damned that's what their going to make even if it means laying of lower level workers or overcharging for their product or service or causing artificial shortages by cutting back on production. They will use advertising to convince the masses that they are really doing them a favor.

Big pharmacy, hospitals, HMO and insurance companies along with most corporate entities like having labor and the middle and lower classes being forced to depend on their employers for health insurance coverage. They have made it too expensive for most people to pay for their own coverage directly so workers are dependent on their employers for whatever package the employer decides to buy. If your not in a union you get little to no input as to what coverage at what price insurance is offered. Many have to stay in jobs they don't really like just to keep health insurance coverage. Now when an option that in the end is 'free market' in the sense that the only entity big enough to enter into this closed society of health care providers and really make a difference in pricing is the federal government big health care and the Republicans don't want the competition. There is no real competition now I am sure there is a term for it but it is basically an 'industry monopoly'. It is not a monopoly controlled by one person or corporation it is an industry that has strong control over who is allowed in and therefore can get away with charging whatever they want rather than what the customer can bear. It is time to break the back of this conglomeration of companies and at a minimum give a public option for insurance with government aid for those that have trouble affording it (personally I support one-payer but that's another rant).

[simple]

6. Bottom line

If you take the money (success)motivation out of the equation, what is the motivation in the long run for the doctors, pharm, etc? Somehow there will be this ethical motivation to produce where there wasn't before? If the fed is dictating that these people must help those people for this amount of compensation, what will happen is those most successful will move on to the more lucrative side of it (the private supplemental side), and then the fed will say you can't get supplemental (this is the case in some countries). If the fed is involved, the winks and nods will be at that level (as if they aren't now), and it is at a level where we can't just say "I don't want you anymore", and decisions are made by different people with completely different views and ethics every few years. Bottom line- I will choose what is best (believe it or not we have the choice as it is right now).



Education:
US: arguably the worst K-12 in industrialized world, and the best secondary schools in the world. The difference: government

[droidamus2]

7. Oh so?

So the only reason people enter the medical profession is to make money and they don't give a damn if they help people? Yes, they need to make money no doubt but are these people so self serving that they would give up the profession if they couldn't make X amount of money. I would sure hope not. I am sorry but I don't believe peoples health care should be a for profit venture and yes therefore the amount of money somebody in the profession could make would be limited. Will it take awhile to work out all the particulars so that it works for everybody? Without a doubt. Maybe you have the choice but that is not the case for everybody. Think beyond your own self interest and to what is best for everybody not just those with the money to buy what they want. I also reject your point that the only measure of success is how much money you make.

[simple]

8. OK

Not at all, but this is who we are targeting today, right? why? I think it is because they are the best.

You are not going to legislate a new motivation.


Not give it up, go where more money is, or never enter the profession It may not be the moral thing to do, but I have news for you, this is how it works. We have very gifted medical professionals and drug research, the best, because they make good money. If you stifle that potential, you must admit, it will stifle the quality.



Ahhhhh............ hope



if you believe it or not, to the extent it is now,it always has been and will be. Again, there are those who are not motivated by money, but for some reason we are not talking about their care being needed.


If I provide a service, I open an office and perform elbow surgery. Do you contend I should be limited on how much I can profit? If so, what if I do 2 or 3 surgeries a day (work harder) to up my profits? What if I hire someone under me and they work for me, are they limited or am I limited what I can profit from them?

I can think of many complexities regarding this one office, and people are trying to micro manage the entire industry.



I do think beyond my own self interest. There seems to be this notion that if you don't agree that the government should control it, you are against it or don't care. To the contrary, I think the fed will screw it up, and it can't be fixed quickly. Heck, even if we get a good plan and it seems to be working, the government changes and it is taken in a different direction. If a company screws it up, they fix it quick or they are gone, and a new one steps in.


off the top of your head, the best organizations:

Red Cross?
Good Will?
FEMA?

What's the difference?

[droidamus2]

9. Oh well

Since you have bought the capitalist/free market line completely and I don't it is obvious we will never agree on what the right solution is. I guess we will just have to wait and see what they come up with and see if it works.