Comments on: Checking in on the Healthcare Debate http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: john diver http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10733 john diver Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:34:14 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10733 The problem with health care in U.S. is that most of our current public servants are more interested in serving themselves than serving their constituents. There is no need to pretend to have to re-invent the wheel here. Simply model the U.S. health care system after the ones in Canada, and U.K., and Japan, and Germany! Thank you. The problem with health care in U.S. is that most of our current public servants are more interested in serving themselves than serving their constituents. There is no need to pretend to have to re-invent the wheel here. Simply model the U.S. health care system after the ones in Canada, and U.K., and Japan, and Germany! Thank you.

]]> By: m65 http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10676 m65 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:54:31 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10676 good read thanks for the share. i really like the way the article is written and also the design of the website good read thanks for the share. i really like the way the article is written and also the design of the website

]]> By: Rationing? Did he say Rationing?! « Exile on Mainstream http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10572 Rationing? Did he say Rationing?! « Exile on Mainstream Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:53:09 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10572 [...] are — this is how insur­ance com­pa­nies of any stripe man­age risk, as Julian Sanchez notes here — but it’s aston­ish­ing the degree to which this real­ity isn’t even acknowl­edged in [...] [...] are — this is how insur­ance com­pa­nies of any stripe man­age risk, as Julian Sanchez notes here — but it’s aston­ish­ing the degree to which this real­ity isn’t even acknowl­edged in [...]

]]> By: Barry http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10219 Barry Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:17:42 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10219 Julian, some comments on your article. First, the evidence is very clear, than some form of publicly-funded universal health care does better than the current US system. There are a lot of different forms in a lot of different countries, and they all work better, except for (say) the top 10% of earners, who have the sheer buying power to afford big ticket items. This is supported by the complaints used against them: e.g., that many Canadians come to the US for treatment. I've seen people gasp(!?!?!?!) at waiting times for hip replacements which both ignored those who don't get them in the US, or show no concept of normal US waiting times (I waited 7 months for mine, and I've got gold-level health insurance). Second, a big problem is that the US system, in both medicine and politics, is shockingly corrupt. We're seeing it with healthcare reform, and in the Wall St meltdown - the US political elites have happily mainstreamed the idea that $700 billion in cash payments + $1-2 trillion $ in special Fed loans on junk assets is no reason to get all communist and break up the current system. From what I've gathered, it's likely that the UK will break up/reign in The City before the US does jack to Wall St. Note - I'm not saying that the US is the most corrupt country on Earth, nor even in the top few, but we're far higher than we like to think. The difference is that we define 'bribe' as less than $1 million/year to a politician, and so deliberately ignore the mass of bribery in the USA. Interwined in this US corruption is the US system - note that the Democratic Party not only has the Presidency, but also has taken a larger share of Congress than any party has in 40 year, on top of the failure and discrediting of the opposition party. But Obama is both not able to act like that, and is also internally constrained (note that he's a Harvard/Chicago guy, with a White House full of the guilty economists and Wall St tools who got us into this mess). One result of numerous chokepoints in the political process is that many things don't get done. Another is that to get things done, many odious payoffs need to be made (unless a particular item of business is itself an odious payoff). A final comment - Julian, you're using 'conservative' again. What conservatives are there? The ones who supported Bush II for 8 years, and then went 47% to 53% for McCain? Now, right-wingers we've got plenty of, and they looooooove things which help elites make more money (like insurance companies) from the government. It's only when the government might do something socialistic like help the non-rich that the right descovers what they call principles. Julian, some comments on your article.

First, the evidence is very clear, than some form of publicly-funded universal health care does better than the current US system. There are a lot of different forms in a lot of different countries, and they all work better, except for (say) the top 10% of earners, who have the sheer buying power to afford big ticket items. This is supported by the complaints used against them: e.g., that many Canadians come to the US for treatment. I’ve seen people gasp(!?!?!?!) at waiting times for hip replacements which both ignored those who don’t get them in the US, or show no concept of normal US waiting times (I waited 7 months for mine, and I’ve got gold-level health insurance).

Second, a big problem is that the US system, in both medicine and politics, is shockingly corrupt. We’re seeing it with healthcare reform, and in the Wall St meltdown – the US political elites have happily mainstreamed the idea that $700 billion in cash payments + $1-2 trillion $ in special Fed loans on junk assets is no reason to get all communist and break up the current system. From what I’ve gathered, it’s likely that the UK will break up/reign in The City before the US does jack to Wall St. Note – I’m not saying that the US is the most corrupt country on Earth, nor even in the top few, but we’re far higher than we like to think. The difference is that we define ‘bribe’ as less than $1 million/year to a politician, and so deliberately ignore the mass of bribery in the USA.

Interwined in this US corruption is the US system – note that the Democratic Party not only has the Presidency, but also has taken a larger share of Congress than any party has in 40 year, on top of the failure and discrediting of the opposition party. But Obama is both not able to act like that, and is also internally constrained (note that he’s a Harvard/Chicago guy, with a White House full of the guilty economists and Wall St tools who got us into this mess).

One result of numerous chokepoints in the political process is that many things don’t get done. Another is that to get things done, many odious payoffs need to be made (unless a particular item of business is itself an odious payoff).

A final comment – Julian, you’re using ‘conservative’ again. What conservatives are there? The ones who supported Bush II for 8 years, and then went 47% to 53% for McCain? Now, right-wingers we’ve got plenty of, and they looooooove things which help elites make more money (like insurance companies) from the government. It’s only when the government might do something socialistic like help the non-rich that the right descovers what they call principles.

]]> By: Charles http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10211 Charles Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:57:18 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10211 The reason insurance companies need to be preserved is simply because there are more than one of them. It is Economics 101 that competition produces a better product, and that it is in everyone's best interest that individuals be allowed to take their business elsewhere if they are unsatisfied with the product they receive. For all its faults (and there are many) the current bill at least preserves this feature of the market. The reason the public option is as odious as it it, is because rather than offering more "choice," as proponents usually argue, the public option would quickly overrun the market by offering consumers (allegedly) the same care for unrealistically low prices due to the government's ability to use tax revenues to hide the cost. Eventually private insurers would find themselves unable to compete and inevitably close down thus sending their customers into the arms of the government. The best possible outcome of this scenario is that private insurance becomes equivalent to private school, IE something only the rich or the desperate even consider purchasing. At worst, this will lead to the complete decimation of the insurance industry and a government monopoly on health insurance. This is something the far left is openly hoping for, and that is the reason the public option is so toxic for conservatives and centrists. This, of course, does not mean I support the bill as is. I lean towards the mainstream conservative view that what we need is tort reform and deregulation in order to bring costs down, although I break from the right in that I could be convinced to accept subsidies for catastrophic coverage. The reason insurance companies need to be preserved is simply because there are more than one of them. It is Economics 101 that competition produces a better product, and that it is in everyone’s best interest that individuals be allowed to take their business elsewhere if they are unsatisfied with the product they receive. For all its faults (and there are many) the current bill at least preserves this feature of the market.

The reason the public option is as odious as it it, is because rather than offering more “choice,” as proponents usually argue, the public option would quickly overrun the market by offering consumers (allegedly) the same care for unrealistically low prices due to the government’s ability to use tax revenues to hide the cost. Eventually private insurers would find themselves unable to compete and inevitably close down thus sending their customers into the arms of the government. The best possible outcome of this scenario is that private insurance becomes equivalent to private school, IE something only the rich or the desperate even consider purchasing. At worst, this will lead to the complete decimation of the insurance industry and a government monopoly on health insurance. This is something the far left is openly hoping for, and that is the reason the public option is so toxic for conservatives and centrists.

This, of course, does not mean I support the bill as is. I lean towards the mainstream conservative view that what we need is tort reform and deregulation in order to bring costs down, although I break from the right in that I could be convinced to accept subsidies for catastrophic coverage.

]]> By: Will http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10176 Will Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:52:24 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10176 Julian, I see your point, but I don't think that a mandate precludes competition. For example, in California (at least) you need to have car insurance if you have a car, and there seems to be a robust market for car insurance (full disclosure: I don't own a car, but I sure do see/hear a lot of car insurance ads, all fighting to say that they have the lowest prices, etc). I think what is most important for maintaining competition is adding new entries to the game (e.g. the now-dead public option, or other private outfits); you need companies to start worrying about their market share if you want them to start competing for said market share. Perhaps a good plan would involve making it easier to set up new insurance companies, so we avoid a calcification in number of products offered and quality of products offered. I suppose you could draw a parallel to the mobile phone industry, too: MetroPCS seems to have the best plans (no mandatory 2-year contracts for decent plans, low per-minute pricing, high perks), but everyone knows that they have a terrible network, so Verizon, Sprint, ATT, and TMobile gobble up the market share with similar customer-gouging plans. Maybe the gov. should get involved to make sure that the MetroPCSs of the health insurance industry get a chance to gain a legitimate position against the bigger companies. Julian,
I see your point, but I don’t think that a mandate precludes competition. For example, in California (at least) you need to have car insurance if you have a car, and there seems to be a robust market for car insurance (full disclosure: I don’t own a car, but I sure do see/hear a lot of car insurance ads, all fighting to say that they have the lowest prices, etc). I think what is most important for maintaining competition is adding new entries to the game (e.g. the now-dead public option, or other private outfits); you need companies to start worrying about their market share if you want them to start competing for said market share. Perhaps a good plan would involve making it easier to set up new insurance companies, so we avoid a calcification in number of products offered and quality of products offered. I suppose you could draw a parallel to the mobile phone industry, too: MetroPCS seems to have the best plans (no mandatory 2-year contracts for decent plans, low per-minute pricing, high perks), but everyone knows that they have a terrible network, so Verizon, Sprint, ATT, and TMobile gobble up the market share with similar customer-gouging plans. Maybe the gov. should get involved to make sure that the MetroPCSs of the health insurance industry get a chance to gain a legitimate position against the bigger companies.

]]> By: A Note on Health Care: Stop Wage-Enslaving Me Bro! « Let A Thousand Nations Bloom http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10175 A Note on Health Care: Stop Wage-Enslaving Me Bro! « Let A Thousand Nations Bloom Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:35:30 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10175 [...] and Julian Sanchez have sane perspectives on the national health care debate and the motives of those promoting it. [...] [...] and Julian Sanchez have sane perspectives on the national health care debate and the motives of those promoting it. [...]

]]> By: stephen http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10174 stephen Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:55:40 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10174 Sorry about my earlier comment, upon further reflection I think you are right. Sorry about my earlier comment, upon further reflection I think you are right.

]]> By: DavidS http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10173 DavidS Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:42:44 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10173 Julian, isn't this the same as the situation that would exist with school vouchers? Every parent is mandated to obtain an education for their child, parents with low income or unusual needs are subsidized, and we would have a market to compete in providing that education. It is true that insurance agencies will not be able to compete on their ability to forecast medical costs accurately (and, as you point out, should therefore not be called insurers). However, they still might be able to compete on convenience of filing paperwork, internal efficiencies, ability to recommend useful specialists ... If you really think that government bureaucracies are uniquely unpleasant, I could see claiming that this was the best plan. Julian, isn’t this the same as the situation that would exist with school vouchers? Every parent is mandated to obtain an education for their child, parents with low income or unusual needs are subsidized, and we would have a market to compete in providing that education.

It is true that insurance agencies will not be able to compete on their ability to forecast medical costs accurately (and, as you point out, should therefore not be called insurers). However, they still might be able to compete on convenience of filing paperwork, internal efficiencies, ability to recommend useful specialists …
If you really think that government bureaucracies are uniquely unpleasant, I could see claiming that this was the best plan.

]]> By: Murder, He Lied » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/15/checking-in-on-the-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10170 Murder, He Lied » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:01:00 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3876#comment-10170 [...] to be laying their emphasis on this point: It’s the best argument (and, indeed, increasingly the only argument) in favor of the current legislation. But I think Ezra’s missing the point when he acts puzzled [...] [...] to be laying their emphasis on this point: It’s the best argument (and, indeed, increasingly the only argument) in favor of the current legislation. But I think Ezra’s missing the point when he acts puzzled [...]

]]>