Obama's Health Plan

[RobinFinderson]

I think I have consistently said the first priority should be age. For instance, if there aren't enough organs to go around poor 18 year old gets priority over 80 year old rich guy.

So a thirty-six year old poor person (with no ability to pay) should get the heart transplant before the wealthy fifty-year-old?

[tooblue]

By the way below is the opening statement of the study you cite:

ABSTRACT: Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries. This report—an update to two earlier editions—includes data from surveys of patients, as well as information from primary care physicians about their medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems. Compared with five other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses to improve care coordination for the chronically ill.

[byu71]

So a thirty-six year old poor person (with no ability to pay) should get the heart transplant before the wealthy fifty-year-old?

I don't know, what do you think? In that case who should get the first choice.

[KillerDog]

I'm not angry that I have to pay -- such a mischaracterization is asinine. Not only was I willing to pay but in fact for three years I thought I was paying $300 a month. Sike!

Trust me -- I pay for coverage now

Oh yah, and having children is optional. Of course society won't survive without people choosing to have children. When you are old and gray and retire who is going to take your place in the work force ... making the same salary taxed to the same extent so that you can drive on quality roads and have fresh drinking water come out of your faucets etc.

Yup, having kids is optional! Oh, I know we'll just let more immigrants into the country. Of course they will not be educated, nor will they be able to fill your position but ...

I can tell you've really thought your argument through

I believe you're the one who hasn't thought it through. Having kids is useful for society, so is bathing. Usefulness to society is not the measure of whether something should be insured. Predictability is the measure. If you can anticipate, control, and plan to have a child then you can also save and prepare for having a child. To expect insurance to cover a predictable cost makes no sense. I don't think insurance should pay for things that are choice based. Insurance shouldn't pay for nose jobs, boob jobs, or child birth.

[tooblue]

I believe you're the one who hasn't thought it through. Having kids is useful for society, so is bathing. Usefulness to society is not the measure of whether something should be insured. Predictability is the measure. If you can anticipate, control, and plan to have a child then you can also save and prepare for having a child. To expect insurance to cover a predictable cost makes no sense. I don't think insurance should pay for things that are choice based. Insurance shouldn't pay for nose jobs, boob jobs, or child birth.

No, you haven't thought it through. Having children isn't merely useful to society it is essential to a societies survival. You don't even know what you are arguing? I am willing to pay for coverage. I did pay for coverage but found out later I wasn't paying enough. so I went somewhere where I paid in a different way. It's called high taxes!

[KillerDog]

No, you haven't thought it through. Having children isn't merely useful to society it is essential to a societies survival. You don't even know what you are arguing? I am willing to pay for coverage. I did pay for coverage but found out later I wasn't paying enough. so I went somewhere where I paid in a different way. It's called high taxes!

Lots of essential things aren't covered by insurance. The point remains. You bitch and moan about the birth not being covered and I don't understand why it is so obvious to you that it must be covered. Need is not the criteria, neither is the essential nature of the item. The criteria for coverage in insurance is predictability. That's why your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes. If it did, it would be substantially more expensive.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't know, what do you think? In that case who should get the first choice.

I think organ transplants should be queued, with the position in the queue determined by several factors:

1. Has the candidate's immediate relatives donated organs into the system? If so, s/he should receive preferred placement.

2. Is the person a registered organ donor? If so, s/he should received better starting queue position. (this would require a different registration system than what we have now)

3. What are the ages of the candidates? There would be some kind of logarithmic scale heavily weighted to favor the young, and weighted against the elderly. In the example of 36 vs. 50, the younger candidate might receive a small benefit, but not much.

A weighted queue like this seems like a much more moral system than one based primarily on individual wealth.

[tooblue]

Lots of essential things aren't covered by insurance. The point remains. You bitch and moan about the birth not being covered and I don't understand why it is so obvious to you that it must be covered. Need is not the criteria, neither is the essential nature of the item. The criteria for coverage in insurance is predictability. That's why your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes. If it did, it would be substantially more expensive.

You are comparing oil changes to having babies? Wow.

Maybe we need to get sooner in here to talk to this fellow and direct him to a more appropriate thread.

[byu71]

I think organ transplants should be queued, with the position in the queue determined by several factors:

1. Has the candidate's immediate relatives donated organs into the system? If so, s/he should receive preferred placement.

2. Is the person a registered organ donor? If so, s/he should received better starting queue position. (this would require a different registration system than what we have now)

3. What are the ages of the candidates? There would be some kind of logarithmic scale heavily weighted to favor the young, and weighted against the elderly. In the example of 36 vs. 50, the younger candidate might receive a small benefit, but not much.

A weighted queue like this seems like a much more moral system than one based primarily on individual wealth.

OK, how about a compromise. Your system is in place, but I don't have to subsidize through my taxes any transplants for folks over 50 years old.

My point is there isn't enough money to go around to provide everything for everybody. At some point those paying for everything will say enough is enough and stop being productive.

[RobinFinderson]

Lots of essential things aren't covered by insurance. The point remains. You bitch and moan about the birth not being covered and I don't understand why it is so obvious to you that it must be covered. Need is not the criteria, neither is the essential nature of the item. The criteria for coverage in insurance is predictability. That's why your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes. If it did, it would be substantially more expensive.

Only under a for-profit system would anyone challenge the legitimacy of child birth as a coverable procedure. Having healthy children and raising them well is imperative for the future well being of the nation as a whole. The for-profit system is devouring itself.

[RobinFinderson]

OK, how about a compromise. Your system is in place, but I don't have to subsidize through my taxes any transplants for folks over 50 years old.

My point is there isn't enough money to go around to provide everything for everybody. At some point those paying for everything will say enough is enough and stop being productive.

It might not be so bad to pay for all of the procedures if the prices were mor fair. The cost of procedures in this country are kept artificially high. We live in a country where medical school enrollment is capped to help control the supply side of doctors, thus ensuring that doctors' services are more scarce and more highly valued. Let the free-marketeers chew on that for a bit.

[byu71]

It might not be so bad to pay for all of the procedures if the prices were mor fair. The cost of procedures in this country are kept artificially high. We live in a country where medical school enrollment is capped to help control the supply side of doctors, thus ensuring that doctors' services are more scarce and more highly valued. Let the free-marketeers chew on that for a bit.

I have a hard time believing that. The fewer doctors the fewer law suits the liability attorney's can file. I just don't think their lobby would allow a limitation on the number of folks they can eventually sue.

[RobinFinderson]

I have a hard time believing that. The fewer doctors the fewer law suits the liability attorney's can file. I just don't think their lobby would allow a limitation on the number of folks they can eventually sue.

Maybe one of our good resident doctors can offer an informed POV, but it is my understanding that the AMA artificially sets total national medical school enrollment levels.

[KillerDog]

You are comparing oil changes to having babies? Wow.

Maybe we need to get sooner in here to talk to this fellow and direct him to a more appropriate thread.

Good defense. Next time I argue I'll use that one. I believe it is called "I dont' know why but I hate your argument."

[KillerDog]

It might not be so bad to pay for all of the procedures if the prices were mor fair. The cost of procedures in this country are kept artificially high. We live in a country where medical school enrollment is capped to help control the supply side of doctors, thus ensuring that doctors' services are more scarce and more highly valued. Let the free-marketeers chew on that for a bit.

I don't disagree with that. I think the control of supply drives up price to monopoly price. I don't remember for certain though.