www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Endless Health Care Problems in the United Kingdom

One more market-based reform John did not discuss: require the posting of prices for standard medical procedures, which would allow patients to shop around. At present, price structure is opaque, which means there is now way for patients to determine if they are getting a competitive price--and since everything is paid by a third party, they don't care, anyway. But if prices were posted, and advertised, then they would begin to converge at the low end.

This has been the case in two areas of medical practice not covered by insurance: cosmetic surgery, and lasik eye surgery. In both cases, healthy competition among providers has led to a dramatic reduction in costs without sacrificing quality of service.

A few quick comments...



If someone in NY does not want full coverage they and are looking for a "cheap" plan...they would buy from Mississippi or another state that has even less regulations...And I repeat they would get just that...a CHEAP plan with exclusions out the "ying yang".



Actually, the house bill does include a "young invincable" option...

Tort reform...I won't say anymore...Stuart's argument is nothing more than taking the extreme and trying to paint all Democrats/Liberals that way...



Actually, it is, since those not covered thru their employer would be eligible.



Define, the market??? Nobody I know, really has any say...it's like the insurance companies have a gun to our heads...there is no market...it is what it is...



The line needs to be drawn somewhere, if costs are going to be controlled. Also, that's good for you that you are healthy enough to not be one of the tens of millions in this country who can not just drop their insurance and go to another company...due to pre-existing conditions that insurance companies would not cover outside a group plan...If you are dissatisified with your government, your not screwed...you just need to "suck it up" and work harder on the next election...That's what Democrats and/or Liberals did during the Bush years and the years of Republican control of congress.

JOB:

Christ is in our midst!!

There's no such thing as "controlling costs." A cost is what it takes to produce some good or service. We can control the price of what can be charged for the good or service. But when the price that can be charged is less than the cost or production, then one of two things happens: either the good or service is produced by cutting corners or it is not produced at all.

We can control the price--government already does that with Medicare and Medicaid. And there are more physicians who no longer take Medicare and/or Medicaid patients. That's one of the results. Or we can have foreigh-educated physicians come in to fill the gap and wonder about their level of education and training. That's also happening in some parts of the country.

But price and cost are two different animals; they are not the same and they are not interchangeable.

BOB

So? What if that's what they want?


Which won't survive Conference. Whereas the public mandate (buy or get fined) will.


Wait! Democratic Party leadership said that. If they don't speak for the party, who does?


I don't think so, but better them than the government, thanks very much.


Back to Economics 101. There is only one effective way to control costs, and that is through competition. When government imposes cost controls, all it does is artificially constrain supply, while artificially boosting demand. The result is always shortages, such as we now see in our neighbors to the north.

For some reason, you seem to think that health care is some sort of Platonic form, instead of the commodity that it is. As a commodity, it responds to market forces in the same manner as all other commodities. It also responds to government distortion of the market in the same manner as all other commodities.

Health care is a right in the same way that freedom of speech is a right. There is absolutely nothing in the Gospel or the Teaching of the Church which demands support for socialist government run health care. Many Catholics have major problems with some of the bishops who support socialized medicine (a personal opinion they have a right to) because socialized medicine (really socialized anything) ALWAYS leads to rationing. People deserve better.

Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulure.org has the beginnings of a good discussion of this: The Catholic Case Against Health Care Reform [catholicculture.org]. He rightly mentions the moral issues of not being able to stop the government from mandating funding for abortion and other evil things (and we know that no matter what passes some judge is going to rule abortion and other evils a 'right' and order the government to pay for it). But he also mentions that "the principle of subsidiarity teaches (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1894) puts it) that 'neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.' Since health-care coverage can surely be handled by private organizations, resort to the government is questionable at best. Since state governments can surely regulate health insurance, federal involvement is clearly unnecessary."

Also, as we've discussed before, one may have a right expectation to demand the help of a neighbor in an emergency situation but there is nothing in the Gospel about demanding that your neighbor pay for your annual checkup. Care for the poor - yes (but that falls on the Church and not the government and the bishops shirk their responsibility by demanding the government fill the role given to them).

At the level of economics we need more capitalism in health care.

Much to discuss!

Yes, I had forgotten about this - and there are others. Very easy to accomplish.

Stuart responds nicely to Job's points and I'm not sure there is a lot I can add. The market does work and should be allowed to work. We have successful examples all around us - from WalMart and Target (successes) to K-Mart (which had to reorganize because they could not compete). And look at the price drop of high def televisions in the past few years. Health insurance companies that overcharge and deliver poor quality would eventually go out of business. But right now some of the bad ones are propped up by states that stifle the market with unreasonable and unrealistic regulations. [Job rightly complains about some states where regulations allow horrible insurance companies to continue in business. I'd suggest he consider what would happen if people could cross state lines (currently illegal) to buy health insurance from companies that provide better quality and a lower price. Most would do so and the bad companies would be left with no subscribers.]

I will also repeat - look at England and Canada (to pick on just two countries with socialist systems). You can't get the latest cancer drugs on their NHS. You think it won't happen here? Look at Oregon, where the lady was told that she could not get the cancer drug her doctors said was best for her but was offered a suicide pill. It's already happening here. There is no way to stop it under a socialist system. Praise the Lord the 'evil' drug company gave her the drug for free. >> If you support the current proposals being rammed through Congress you are in reality supporting such rationing, especially for the elderly (who will eventually get only pain care and not health care).]

Want lower drug costs? Adopt policies that encourage more capitalism in the pharmaceutical industry.

Lots to be done on the market end that the government prohibits (and in so doing drives up prices).

The problem is these clauses are in the fine print...and the average consumer doesn't know until it's too late...Let's be realistic...companies trying to sell their product do not emphasise, let alone often bring up, their shortcomings...



I know so, even if you don't think so. Thank you very much!



Again, currently...there is no competition in Health Care...the few major carriers dominate the market...also, since most Health Insurance is purchased through employers most people must take what is offered them...

We will never agree on this issue...but I do enjoy "spirited debate"!!!

Chris/Job

Actually, from my posting right above this, Stuart did not give any sort of response other than a "boiler plate" ones...

So, your basic argument in favor of government control is people are too stupid to be trusted to make fundamental decisions about their own lives. Yet the people who run the government are incapable of running their own lives, let alone the lives of 300 million people, as every government program ever conceived amply demonstrates. Left to their own devices, the vast majority of people do just fine.


Again, if you allow the sale of insurance across state lines, there would be competition. To redress the second problem, allow individuals to deduct their premiums in the same way that businesses do, while also allowing small businesses to form their own (not government run) pools to buy group insurance.

In western Pennsylvania there are a lot of companies who offer health insurance...High Mark, Geisinger, UPMC, United Health Care plus most of the major (life) insurance companies. The problem is that hospitals and doctors are selective as to which ones they will accept .....the health care "reform" doesn't address this problem.

Most people are only aware of one or two dominant non-profit insurers because the others are too expensive or not generally recognized by the health providers.

The "reform" bill is not really reform; its a political stab at more control over peoples' lives. That said, I stick to my belief that access to necessary health care is a human right, recognizing Christ in each person. The parable of the good Samaritan suggests this. In my area the hospitals provide this care even if the patient can't afford it. And we have our share of doctors who will do the same.

Fr Deacon Paul

Absolutely not what I am saying. It's not the average consumer who is "stupid" but the corporations making $$$ off of inserting these immoral clauses. It is unrealistic for anyone to think that every contract can and should be read by the average consumer. The average consumer is not stupid. Although, I know that is a claim conservatives tend to throw around.



Once again, I will not continue to beat a dead horse, but this would only lead to a worsing of the situation of the race to the bottom. We'll get plans that are affordable, because they don't cover anything.



You are mixing up two different issues. I would be in favor of allowing individuals to deduct their premiums the same way business does. Actually, come to think of it, you can already deduct this if an individual is paying for their health insurance, because due to the high expense of Health Insurance, it easily meets the 7.5% threshold to itemize health care expenses. Although, I think, and I don't have a problem with it, it would lead to the elimination of Health Insurance benefits offered in the workplace. Which is why I am saying you are mixing up two different issues. Do you want small businesses to form their own pools (so we can keep the current employer based model) (Also, they already can do this and many do.) Or would you have the emphasys put on the individual?

And they are immoral why? Because you don't like them?

.

So, the consumer is stupid?


Which is it? Make up your mind.


Um, no. Conservatives believe that the market regulates better than the government. Insurance companies, like other businesses, are punished by the market if they get a reputation for cheating their customers. When the government cheats its customers, it's call "policy".


There is no evidence for that at all. In fact, as with all other competitive situations, the company that decides to go the extra mile will get most of the customers (at which point, I suppose, the government will bring an anti-trust suit against it).


It tends not to, when your income is high--as I know from personal experience.


My preference is to move insurance companies from employers to individuals. Individuals have an incentive to keep down costs; employers tend not to. But if a small business employer wants to offer insurance as a benefit to attract good workers, I favor a pool system that allows them to compete in the same manner as large business for group coverage.

They are immoral since they are "fine print" which is inserted with the sole purpose of creating "loopholes" to prevent paying on what the basic contract is meant to cover. If you don't like using the term immoral for these practices. Maybe they can be "charged off" to "slimy business practices"??? I really don't know how anyone could possibly support such practices. Especially "Christians" so I am assuming we are going through this exercise where you are playing devil's advocate.



I don't know what you mean? Are you demeaning the average consumer since we are busy and if we read and analyze every contract presented to us in our society we would have time for nothing else? Glad you must be independently wealthy, so you can either read and analyze all day or pay others to do so! Otherwise you would realize that people with lives don't have time to do so, even if the inclination is there. It's extremely sad to me, that you would call people stupid because they have lives. I definitely have not.



I think here is where we get to the heart of the matter. It sounds like you are crying "I'm well off, so who cares about the less fortunate. The Rule doesn't help me." Sounds like I should refer to you as Scrooge not Stuart

As I said, companies that indulge in such practices will lose their business quite rapidly. It happens in all other sectors of the economy (including other parts of the insurance industry), so why should health insurance be any different, especially if there is more competition?


If you are too busy to read a contract that could have life-altering consequences, you deserve what you get--just like those people who took out adjustable rate mortgages without reading the terms, who suddenly found themselves inundated by massive balloon payments.


No, not at all. I'm not that well off, just not dirt poor. But once I was dirt poor, so don't bother to lecture me. Inter alia, it's not Scrooge's business acumen that is criticized by Dickens, it is the manner in which he uses (or doesn't use, to be precise) his wealth. For Scrooge, the accumulation of wealth is an end in itself. Dickens doesn't call for Scrooge to abandon sound business principles (and note, there is never a hint that Scrooge engaged in shady business practices, just hard-headed ones). Scrooge is quite right in saying that, but for his business sense, Cratchett would not only not have a Christmas feast, he wouldn't have a job at all. But Scrooge was wrong to horde his wealth, and not to use it more productively, as a good steward should

As for the rule, it won't help anybody except government bureaucrats. Caveat emptor, you get what you pay for--only in the case of the pending "reform" bills, several trillions of dollars will simply buy you lousy care at a higher price. Assuming this bill passes, where are you going to find the people willing to be physicians? Will Canada's shortage be mirrored by our own? Or do you think that doctors, pharmacologists, molecular biologists, medical technicians and the like all grow on trees?

In places where health care is free, it's worth what you pay for it.

Maybe I am wrong here. But, it seems to me that this thread has digressed into an argument between two divergent ideologies. Maybe it is time to back off and let the Byzantine Forums get back to normal.
God Bless and Merry Christmas.