On the other hand, it’s silly to argue with you. You say you believe in the market, except that you don’t. The areas you are arguing for government intervention are precisely the areas that could most benefit from getting rid of the massive intervention already occurring. Why have our universities been the model for the rest of the world? In a single word, competition. Why are our elementary and secondary schools the shame of the industrialized world? There’s a key difference between our universities and K-12 education: competition and market forces.

There are so many examples and economic basics I could give you. But, I suspect (I know, actually, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) that your mind is completely closed to them as you think with a bleeding heart and strive for things that will make life worse for the poor and underprivileged, not better.

Just to pick out one point where you clearly don’t understand what’s going on:

I don’t think market forces are working and ,yes,
a government sponsored single payer system would be much better than what we currently have.

I assume that you think that our current health system is a free market? It is not, by any stretch of the imagination. If you look at previous posts on the health system in this country, you will find an inordinate number of details on why that’s so, too many to repeat here. If you think our current system is broken, you are indicting a government regulated system full of government money, mandates and intervention, not a free market system.

44 million people in the U.S. have no coverage at all.

Another 40 million are uninsured at some time during each year.

Another 80 million have only partial health care.

75% of Americans with no healthcare are working, often 2 or 3 jobs.

We have more healthcare administrators in the U.S. than doctors.

The U.S. Healthcare System is ranked #37 by the World Health Organization.

Health Care is considered a basic human right in all democratic, industrialized nations except the U. S.

The US has one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy rates among democratic, industrialized nations.

The uninsured are billed at prices many times higher that what insured people are charged for the same service.

Only HALF of every healthcare dollar is actually paid to doctors, hospitals and other providers of healthcare services.

Prisoners are often afforded better healthcare than many law abiding citizens.

I don’t think market forces are working and ,yes,
a government sponsored single payer system would be much better than what we currently have.

The developed countries that have this type of solution contain costs and provide better healthcare than we do in the U. S., despite the myth that government management will end up increasing cost and decreasing quality of care.

Higher taxation rates do not always ruin the economy. A famous conservative economist whose name I cannot remember said “soak the rich taxes do not hurt the economy.”

I’d like to see the truly wealthy pay more. Especially CEOs who make 40 million in a year,
have pension plans of 2 million a year, and the only truly “gold-plated” heathcare plans in existence. (I’m talking about my CEO, who also stole the workers pensions, continues to reduce healthcare benefits and is sending jobs to BRIC and others like him.)

I certainly can’t think of a logical reason that
the companies themselves have to pay for the healthcare. Seems to me it would be better for both the shareholders and employees if they didn’t have to.

I believe in capitalism and free trade, with the governments role primarily to keep companies honest. I even believe in globalization and free trade agreements even though it will eventually end up costing me my job.

The exceptions to that should be retirement, health care, and college educations. Our country is wealthy enough to provide it for everyone. I don’t think 14,000 people should die from lack of healthcare or that old people should starve to death. Private charities, while a good thing, are not enough to solve the problems.

And why should the social security tax be capped at 90K a year? People who are making 300K a year or a million a year can’t afford it?

Trickle down theory is nonsense. In 1980, when Reagon made that popular, people in the top 1% of the income bracket had 8% of the countries wealth.
Now they have 16%.

Or, did you have something else in mind?

I don’t think a minimum wage worker could afford the
$2000 co-pay I have for my son’s braces, let alone the $5000 if they don’t have dental insurance.

Doctors office co-pays are around $20-$30 per visit. I assure you that it stops people in tight circumstances from going to the DRs office unless they think it absolutely necessary.

What I want to know is this. What is the definition of “gold-plated” and “overinsured?”

Visiting a doctor for a cold, while possibly unnecessary (who can tell? If you’ve had it for
4 weeks, you might make an appointment just to check that it isn’t something else) is not a good
example. It’s a cheap service. Insurers are happy to take children despite their numerous
illnesses and DRs visits because they don’t cost much.

They don’t want to treat people with expensive illnesses like cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

My best friend had numerous expensive tests over a two year period all of which came back negative (her husband had a job with good insurance thank goodness!) Was that an example of gold-plated insurance? After all they didn’t find anything?
Is that all the “unnecessary testing” we hear about? After all they didn’t find anything.

Until they finally did. She was eventually diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Her daugher was six. With kemo and many ridiculously expensive drugs she was able to survive another 6 years.

She had a wonderful productive life the last 6 years. She was actively involved in programs that teach children how to deal with it when a parent has cancer.

Her healthcare ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even then, she had to ration out medication due to expense. Is this an example of “gold-plated” overinsurance?

Under the current system, if her husband lost his job, she should be allowed to die because of the 100% chance of cost with a pre-existing condition?

Or even if Bush’s plan were implemented and her husband lost his job and eventually couldn’t pay the premiums and co-pays (o yes I forgot to mention that the co-pays were quite large), she
should be allowed to die?

I am not a big fan of Mr. Bush’s policies. If my
mother were stupid and listened to the propoganda, she would be dead now. Her husband has a very good, probably what some would describe as “gold-plated” union negotiated policies with good prescription coverage.

When medicare part-D came out, she would was encouraged to convert. Her insurance company said that it would be cheaper for her under medicare part D. She looked into it. Not only was it not going to be cheaper many of the drugs were not covered at all. Her cost would have been around $800 a month. (Oh the drug companies had a good time writing that piece of legislation didn’t they?)

My mother has worked hard all over her life. It never even occurred to her to get un-employment when she didn’t have a job. Her modest social security benefits are less than $800 a month but too much to qualify for medicaid.

Fortunately, my mother is a very intelligent woman. She didn’t make the switch and I hope to have with me for many years to come.

Is that another example of “gold-plated” insurance?

On one side we have a group of folks who, for a variety of reasons, feel left out of the equation on healthcare. Some of it is jealousy: “they” have a fabulous PPO insurance, I should be able to get that too. Some of it is an issue of what is most utilitarian. Some of it is an issue of what is ethical in a society.

On the other side, we have folks who have decent to good healthcare and view the other side of the debate as challenging that. They don’t want to end up in a UK style system for the sake of the excluded 20%. And with good reason on their side.

I am neither of those groups. I’m not the conservative that wants to keep it the same because I’m in good shape (although I am in good shape). Nor am I the progressive who wants to shift to a government managed (more than we already have) scheme in the name of “fairness”. I am the classic liberal who wants to put the power in the hands of the people and the market and take it away from the elites, of all stripes.

To get there, we have to get rid of the dysfunctional distortions that have gotten us into this mess. It’s taken 50 years to create our mess, we are not going to fix it overnight. The key is to transition decision making to consumers. Doing that means undoing government intrusion and distortion. What Bush is talking about is a reasonable, incremental first step.

Currently, the tax code discriminates against workers and provides an unfair benefit to employers, one that workers are not privy to. When an employer purchases health care for one of his workers it is a tax deductible expense, therefore he has an incentive to offer more and more compensation in health insurance, not actual wages. And it is the worker that ends up paying for this subsidy with the forgone wages.

The President’s proposal seeks to expand this tax advantage to everybody. Why should employers and corporations have a tax benefit that the rest of us don’t? Especially one that fundamentally distorts the market and ends up pricing a significant amount of people out of the system? This proposal allows people to purchase insurance on parity with the way that their boss does it, only it will belong to them, not their boss. And why should health insurance be tied to a job? Why should you lose it if you are fired, at the very time you need it most, having to go without it or resort to COBRA, which can be prohibitively expensive for many, exactly because you have to pay the same thing your employer was paying in pre-tax dollars.

Today’s unlimited tax exclusion works to the benefit of employers and well-paid workers, not the middle class and below. Tax parity is the answer, and this is a step (just a step, mind you) in the right direction.

There’s a reason you can’t be *insured* against a pre-existing condition: It’s because the certainty of the cost is 100%. It’s like you coming to me and buying auto insurance, then admitting that you’re going to drive your car into a telephone pole tomorrow morning. That event can’t be insured against since it is certain to happen.

If you want to talk wealth transfer programs for those who have pre-existing conditions, we can do that, but in terms of pure insurance, it can’t be done.

In terms of the tax breaks, it’s not the break given to individuals to buy health insurance that’s so laudable, it’s the one being taken away from (really just reduced) employers that’s done incredible damage to the incentive structure around health care in this country.

Part of the damage is that people are forced to switch health plans every time they start or end or change employment, creating a need for people to find insurance far more often than they might want to. In health insurance, it’s better for both insured and insurer to maintain a long term relationship. For the insurer, the longer the relationship, the more they know about the insured’s health and claim history, which means more accurate pricing of the risk, a definite advantage for both the company and insureds who maintain their health. Apart from the above, insureds with a long-term relationship with their insurer are more likely to see benefits from the insurance.

More specifically to your point, the advantage of long term relationships with an insurer becomes most clear for insureds who suffer a serious injury or condition with that particular insurer. For that insurer, the condition was not pre-existing. If the insured is forced to switch, as he often is today, he has to approach a different insurer with a pre-existing insurer, so it is *definitely* in the insured’s interest to maintain the original relationship.

Further, if people picked their own insurers instead of employers picking for them, then companies would have a greater incentive in helping those who are hurt or fall ill on their plans. A great reputation when it comes to claims service is worth far more in terms of profit than minimizing costs in almost every insurance area except health insurance. Why the difference? Because for auto, property, liability, etc, the insured is paying the bill and wants to be taken care of. In health insurance, employers are usually paying the bill and seeking to minimize costs.

Long story short, we DO need a health care system in this country, one that relies on the free market to allow people to pick what works best for them.

Yes, I have had major health problems, of my own and in my family. Unfortunately, the comment that was eaten by the server move talked about the fact that we have other areas that involve catastrophic issues that are driven by market forces just fine. Life, home and auto insurance, for example, deal with catastrophic issues that involve urgent and emotional situations. We have excellent examples to look at of a government system vs. market forces in this area, and determine which is better.

When, however, we discuss healthcare and advocate government run systems as opposed to market driven systems, we are inevitably comparing a dysfunctional government system (ours) to a semi-functional government system (normally Canada or the UK) and claiming that proves that free markets don’t work for healthcare. I’m appalled that we think that we have proved any such thing.