Originally Posted by rogerj' post='783519' date='Feb 2 2009, 07:07 PM

DRANGED, Great post! I don't propose that healthcare be free, but there has to be a way to make it accessible. I do not know the solution but I definitely agree that Socialism is NOT the answer.

Originally Posted by swajames' post='782577' date='Feb 1 2009, 05:41 PM

Well, to your first point, I'd be willing to bet that thanks to those who did vote for change it will be far, far fewer than it would have been had the the status quo been maintained.

Now to your wider point about change. Frankly I have far more faith in Obama's ability to get the country out of the current mess than I would have had in McCain's. Far more. He is already showing that he means business. The prior guy, on the other hand, poured somewhere between $3 trillion and $4 trillion in taxpayer dollars right down the crapper on a war that's cost America and far too many military families over 4,000 brave troops, never mind the simply appalling human cost in civilian casualties. That's money the country can't and could never afford. And now the country is paying the price. McCain really didn't inspire confidence that he'd do things any differently to the prior guy, and the country voted accordingly - and it made the best choice it could. It's as really simple as that - because they were the only two choices you had. Unless you've got a better idea on what those who voted for change should have done.

Originally Posted by swajames' post='783545' date='Feb 2 2009, 04:44 PM

There are a couple of flaws in the argument. Firstly, we already have all of the constituents and component ingredients in John's healthcare recipe available to us today - but they haven't resulted in a healthcare system any more viable than the alternatives. The second is more challenging and is the primary flaw John's usually impeccable thinking. John argues that government involvement generally drives the cost of a given commodity up. That's typically true. It's also true that the will of the free market will typically drive the cost of that same given commodity down. That's not, however what we've seen in healthcare. The reasons are many, but boil down to two: a system managed by insurance companies rather than by doctors, and the ability to profit. Profit is, of course, no bad thing - but it can be when it creates an artificial market, and when it's profit taken at the expense of care.

An example - say my physician bills $2500 for care. My insurer has a negotiated rate of $1000. The physician accepts $1000, and the $1500 excess is written off per the terms of the contract between the two. My doctor is happy, I am happy. If, however, I did not have an insurer, the physician is billing and trying to collect $2500. He's under no obligation to cut me same break he cuts the insurer (as I as an individual have no collective bargaining power). I, therefore, have to pay significantly more than the effective market rate. The stories of this happening are legion. This is compounded because in any given healthcare transaction you may have multiple providers, all charging for their respective element. For one surgical procedure you may pay charges to your physician, a surgeon, an anaesthetist, the hospital where the procedure is performed. Your insurer manages the process. At each stage, you have a profit motive and ultimately cumulative profit.

The net result is this. The free market is driving the cost of care up, and not down as it creates opportunity for profit from a captive audience who have nowhere else to go to get the same result. Government provided care is not free, there is clearly a cost and it is borne by taxpayers, but the starting point is a model that tries to get as much as possible for a fixed budget and this is more likely to drive cost down.

Originally Posted by rogerj' post='783620' date='Feb 2 2009, 07:54 PM

Yep, major medical crisis is number one reason for filing bankruptcy in the US.