NZ tells fatties "no admittance."

[Okla-homey]

See, the Kiwi's have socialized medicine/universal healthcare/WTF you wanna call it when healthcare is rationed. Anyhoo, this large d00d wanted to import his larger wife and the kiwi gubmint said "No" because she, being obese, would make her a fleshy burden on society.

You people agitating for universal healthcare should take note.


New Zealand bars British man's 'fat' wife
By Paul Chapman in Wellington and Graeme Baker
Last Updated: 2:07am GMT 20/11/2007

A British man who moved to New Zealand has been told by officials that his wife is too fat to join him.

Richie Trezise, 35, a rugby-playing Welshman, lost weight to gain entry to New Zealand after initially being rejected for being overweight and a potential burden on the health care system.

His wife, Rowan, 33, a photographer, has been battling for months to shed the pounds so they can be reunited and live Down Under but has so far been unable to overcome New Zealand’s weight regulations.

Mr Trezise, who moved to Auckland in September after shedding two inches from his waist on a crash diet, said that if his wife was not allowed to come out by Christmas they would abandon the idea of emigrating.

His employer-backed skills visa was initially rejected by immigration officials when they discovered that his body mass index, or BMI, was 42, making him morbidly obese under New Zealand regulations.

BMI measures a person’s weight in relation to their height. Anything over 25 is regarded as overweight, and 30 or above is obese.

Mr Trezise, a submarine cable specialist and a former soldier, said: "My doctor laughed at me. He said he’d never seen anything more ridiculous in his whole life. He said not every overweight person is unhealthy or unfit.

"The idea was that we were going to change our lifestyle totally and get outdoors and on mountain bikes and all sorts of activities." The couple, who both lived in Barry, Wales, were all set for a new life after Mr Trezise was headhunted by New Zealand’s Telecom.

On her website, Mrs Trezise said earlier in the year: "We are fed up with life in the UK and moving to New Zealand. Auckland here we come!", but her entries end without mention of her difficulties in the face of immigration law.

Robyn Toomath, a spokesman for Fight the Obesity Epidemic and an endocrinologist, said the BMI limit was valid in the vast majority of people.

She said she was opposed to obese people being stigmatised. "However, the immigration department’s focus is different," she said. "It cannot afford to import people into the country who are going to be a significant drain on our health resources.

"You can see the logic in assessing if there is a significant health cost associated with this individual and that would be a reason for them not coming in."

New Zealand is critically short of skilled workers, and many large firms are intensively recruiting in Britain.

Mr Trezise was recruited to supervise the Southern Cross Cable, which links New Zealand with Australia and the west coast of the United States. He is one of only four highly qualified specialist technicians working on the improvement of the cable.

The New Zealand Immigration Service said it did not know how many people were denied entry to the country because of high BMI readings. However, comments posted on the Emigrate New Zealand website reveal that many people have been turned down after medical tests revealed that they were obese.

[KABOOKIE]

We're Amerika! We can do anything!

[frankensooner]

That is very Denny Crane of them.

[soonerboomer93]

crap, looks like I might not be able to work there

time to hit the gym tonight

[soonerboomer93]

eh, nevermind, they're not a possible job site

guess i won't go visit them :D

[Clever Trevor]

You post this like it's a bad thing.

[mdklatt]

See, the Kiwi's have socialized medicine/universal healthcare/WTF you wanna call it when healthcare is rationed.

Don't kid yourself. We have rationed health care in this country, except that it's the for-profit insurance companies doing the rationing. We have socialized medicine, too--it's called the ER. Instead of paying $50 for somebody to see a doctor, we're paying $500 for them to visit the ER. Brilliant! Wait, it gets better. How about we saddle companies with the burden of providing health care for their employees and retirees? Not only does it take away from the bottom line, it makes employees think twice about changing jobs. The "free market" in action. Fantastic. Why stop now, we're on a roll. It's axiomatic in the insurance the industry that as the number of insureds goes up, the average cost per insured goes down. But screw that. Instead of putting everybody into the same pool, let's fragment ourselves into thousands and thousands of group policies with hundreds and hundreds of insurance companies and see how fast we can drive up costs. We may be paying more for less, but thank God we don't have universal health care.

[Curly Bill]

I was sort of following along...until you said: axiomatic. :D

Still, I don't want universal health care. Hillary wants it, so that tells me that it can't be good for me.

edit...is axiomatic like an automatic wood chopper?

[Vaevictis]

mdklatt, let's not forget how the insurance have a profit motive in stiffing doctors/hospitals out of their payments, and a profit motive for delaying payment for as long as possible, hence introducing tremendous waste into the system by forcing providers to basically hire people to pursue claims and jump through every hoop the insurance company can put in front of them.

Let's also not forget the profit motive in flat out denying coverage, even when it should be extended.

[Frozen Sooner]

It's OK Homey. They don't like gingers either.

[Rogue]

Interesting and strange discrimination, but hardly THE argument against universal healthcare.

[Okla-homey]

Don't kid yourself. We have rationed health care in this country, except that it's the for-profit insurance companies doing the rationing. We have socialized medicine, too--it's called the ER. Instead of paying $50 for somebody to see a doctor, we're paying $500 for them to visit the ER. Brilliant! Wait, it gets better. How about we saddle companies with the burden of providing health care for their employees and retirees? Not only does it take away from the bottom line, it makes employees think twice about changing jobs. The "free market" in action. Fantastic. Why stop now, we're on a roll. It's axiomatic in the insurance the industry that as the number of insureds goes up, the average cost per insured goes down. But screw that. Instead of putting everybody into the same pool, let's fragment ourselves into thousands and thousands of group policies with hundreds and hundreds of insurance companies and see how fast we can drive up costs. We may be paying more for less, but thank God we don't have universal health care.

Lighten up Francis. ;)

First off, those company provided health care policies are not considered income for the worker and thus are not subject to income or other tax. You do away with that dealio and what happens? The employer has to pay people more cash, for which the company pays additional payroll tax and the worker pays additional income tax. End result, p-o'ed workers. As an aside, this whole notion of company paid health benefits got started in WWII as a means for companies to compete for workers in a tight labor market amid gov't mandatory wage caps.

You go "putting everyone in the same pool" and you will end up with a giant tangled-up mess. See, the whole concept of free-markets is based on the undisputed fact competition is good for the consumer. Health inurance is no different. "One size fits all" rarely fits anyone well.

I'll tell you something else. If you honestly believe the same government that can barely manage to deliver your mail, can successfully administer a universal health care system for the entire US population...you are as niave as a very naive thing.

In the US, we have hospitals for poor people, and we have hospitals for the people with insurance or can otherwise afford to pay their medical bills. E.g. Here in Tulsa, for the poor and uninsured, we have the old TRMC (now the oSu medikul senter) where they crank out them there osteopathic phyzishuns.

Everyone who can afford to go somewhere better, does...except for Stoop Troup, who has a familial affection for the place b/c his pop used to practice there.:D That place is on it's heels because it can't break even, even with Medicaid and Medicare covering most of its admissions. Not enough "paying customers" to help absorb the losses incurred on those "non-paying" customers who are insured by Medicare and Medicaid.

The biggest driver-upper of healthcare costs is the fact people are living too danged long and requiring expensive medical procedures when they should be pushing up daisies. When a poor 86 y/o lady shows up to a public hospital and needs a hip replacement, she gets it. Medicare pays some, and the hospital has to eat the difference between what Medicare pays and what the procedure actually costs them to perform. Now, do we want to tell her "no way meemaw, just go die"...or do we want her to have the procedure. I think you know the answer. Universal healthcare won't "fix" that problem. It'll just make it more complicated because there won't be as many "paying" customers for the hospital to spread around the loss and therefore mitigate it.

[Jerk]

I'll tell you something else. If you honestly believe the same government that can barely manage to deliver your mail, can successfully administer a universal health care system for the entire US population...you are as niave as a very naive thing.

B! I! N! G!O!
B! I! N! G!O!
B! I! N! G!O!
And BINGO was his name, o'

Beaurocrats are not held accountable because they are in unions, and cannot be fired. They are promoted to their level of incompetence, or beyond, by seniority only, and not performance (the Peter Principle). You want these people to run your healthcare? Ha! 7 months for an MRI will be "good" time. The rich and politicians (elite) will fly to other countries and pay cash for the good doctors, while the middle class gets in line. And how are we going to pay for all of this? Oh, I have an idea, let's just print more money!

Socialism - Everyone's equal! They're all miserable.

eta: I was wrong about one thing. The politicians will not fly to other countries to pay cash for healthcare. Rather, they will exempt themselves and their families from mandatory participation in the universal system and maintain their own little private system for congressmen only.

[1stTimeCaller]

I was provided Health Care by the Gov't when I was in the Army. No thank you. I'd rather pay for my own than have to deal with that BS again.

[frankensooner]

Remember that large type really chaps Dean's hide.

[KABOOKIE]

Remember that large type really chaps Dean's hide.

O'rilly?

[soonerscuba]

No Fat Chicks.

[Boarder]

The adjective "Morbidly" cracks me up for some reason.

[Curly Bill]

I didn't want to quote Okla-homey's entire post again #12, but FWIW I thought it well thought out, and exceptionally stated. Good job! :D

Universal health care is the sux!

[soonerscuba]

I think we should adopt universal healthcare and deny fatties, smokers, and stupid people. By stupid people I mean those who blow up their meth lab and get third degree burns all over their bodies and such, not the guy who falls off a ladder putting up Santa on the roof. It may sound harsh, but we need to thin the herd.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

When a poor 86 y/o lady shows up to a public hospital and needs a hip replacement, she gets it. Medicare pays some, and the hospital has to eat the difference between what Medicare pays and what the procedure actually costs them to perform. Now, do we want to tell her "no way meemaw, just go die"...or do we want her to have the procedure. I think you know the answer. Universal healthcare won't "fix" that problem. It'll just make it more complicated because there won't be as many "paying" customers for the hospital to spread around the loss and therefore mitigate it.

[Dr.Cox]Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

You're wrong.

You're wrong.

You're wrong.[/Dr.Cox]

Will too. 'Cause as luck will have it in the 4 years or so that "meemaw" spends on the waiting list to have the procedure done, her pain, which she hasn't been able to treat adequately because the one doctor she is allowed to go to every six months doesn't believe in "overprescribing" pain medication, will intensify to the degree that her poor ol' ticker just goes ahead and gives out, thereby eliminating her drag on our medical system and society in general.

:D

[Vaevictis]

You go "putting everyone in the same pool" and you will end up with a giant tangled-up mess. See, the whole concept of free-markets is based on the undisputed fact competition is good for the consumer. Health inurance is no different. "One size fits all" rarely fits anyone well.

Actually, the concept of free markets is quite a bit more complex than that. It's based on the notion that, a free market will naturally gravitate to market equilibrium -- which is also the point at which consumer and producer surplus is maximized -- and that the market is considerably more efficient at doing so than any other entity.

And for a lot of situations, the free market is the best system we have.

Non-elective medical care is not one of them. The free market has a tendency to break down when demand is inelastic, and something that is "buy or die" has very inelastic demand. When you need a heart transplant, your demand for one isn't going to change much whether the price is $1 or $10000 or $100000.

There are a whole lot of other requirements for the free market to work efficiently, and the fact of the matter is, the medical and insurance industries break some pretty important ones. For the insurance industry, the first thing that comes to mind is that it is not an industry with free and easy entry due to capital requirements. That there is a critical requirement for a free market to operate, and without it, the free market concept simply doesn't work.

The "free market" is a nice abstraction, but you need to be really careful not to have a pseudo-religious commitment to it because it has a lot of underlying assumptions that must be met for it to work properly, and they're easily broken.


I'll tell you something else. If you honestly believe the same government that can barely manage to deliver your mail, can successfully administer a universal health care system for the entire US population...you are as niave as a very naive thing.

Meh, this argument is as tired and decrepit as a very tired and decrepit thing.

This argument implies that the federal government can't successfully accomplish any major undertaking... which would include the maintenance and governance of a military, law enforcement, border control, etc, and that consequently, we might as well just shut those things down too.

I mean, if the free market is perfect and government so incapable and corrupt, let's outsource the military, law enforcement and border patrol to private corporations, right? Competition is the best thing, right? Hell, might as well give them extraterritoriality, too!

The fact of the matter is, each of those things suffers the from the same systemic diseases that a universal health care program would. But I doubt we'll see you calling for an end to government management of them.

I don't know if this covers you or not, but most people who make this argument are just throwing stuff and seeing what sticks. The underlying issue is usually a value judgment: they just don't think government should be involved in health care, but it should be involved in the military, law enforcement, etc. And that's okay. But if that's the underlying reason, just say so instead of tossing out the inefficiency red herring.


Universal healthcare won't "fix" that problem. It'll just make it more complicated because there won't be as many "paying" customers for the hospital to spread around the loss and therefore mitigate it.

No, it won't, but universal health care does have economies of scale, and if we assume it is administered correctly -- a big assumption, I agree -- it will result in a more efficient use of our resources.

[Okla-homey]

Meh, this argument is as tired and decrepit as a very tired and decrepit thing.

This argument implies that the federal government can't successfully accomplish any major undertaking... which would include the maintenance and governance of a military, law enforcement, border control, etc, and that consequently, we might as well just shut those things down too.

I mean, if the free market is perfect and government so incapable and corrupt, let's outsource the military, law enforcement and border patrol to private corporations, right? Competition is the best thing, right? Hell, might as well give them extraterritoriality, too!

The fact of the matter is, each of those things suffers the from the same systemic diseases that a universal health care program would. But I doubt we'll see you calling for an end to government management of them.

I don't know if this covers you or not, but most people who make this argument are just throwing stuff and seeing what sticks. The underlying issue is usually a value judgment: they just don't think government should be involved in health care, but it should be involved in the military, law enforcement, etc. And that's okay. But if that's the underlying reason, just say so instead of tossing out the inefficiency red herring.


Those things "work" relatively well because there is not a lot of bureacratic subjectivity involved in "enforce the law," or "close with and destroy the enemy."

I doubt we could tell a bunch of bureaucrats "pay to heal the sick and lame" and have a very good result. I expect the ensuing C.F.R.'s would be a couple million pages alone. Of course, I'm only relying on twenty-plus years in government service working amid and with such bureacrats so I could be wrong.

I find it the height of hypocrisy for people on one hand to pillory FEMA for the Katrina (and other) fiascos and OTOH, to contend gubmint can "fix" healthcare.

[Curly Bill]

I think we should adopt universal healthcare and deny fatties, smokers, and stupid people. By stupid people I mean those who blow up their meth lab and get third degree burns all over their bodies and such, not the guy who falls off a ladder putting up Santa on the roof. It may sound harsh, but we need to thin the herd.

If we denied stupid people we'd have more people uninsured then we do now. :D

[Vaevictis]

Those things "work" relatively well because there is not a lot of bureacratic subjectivity involved in "enforce the law," or "close with and destroy the enemy."

I doubt we could tell a bunch of bureaucrats "pay to heal the sick and lame" and have a very good result. I expect the ensuing C.F.R.'s would be a couple million pages alone. Of course, I'm only relying on twenty-plus years in government service working amid and with such bureacrats so I could be wrong.

I'm not arguing that there won't be plenty of waste. I'm just saying that, hey, if that's argument, there's a buttload of government programs that have that problem including the military and law enforcement.

Unless you're going to advocate the privatization of all such government programs, then you should admit that for some reason, you really do believe that there are some situations where the free market just ain't the best thing we've got going.


I find it the height of hypocrisy for people on one hand to pillory FEMA for the Katrina (and other) fiascos and OTOH, to contend gubmint can "fix" healthcare.

Having the government "fix" it isn't the issue for me. The issue for me is that if you look at it objectively, then it's pretty easy to see that:

1. Our medical system isn't a free market, either on the provider or on the payer side. It's not even close, so it'd be nice if we'd stop pretending that it is.
2. The free market model isn't going to work for any medical system because the basic assumptions that underly the free market model are violated by the very nature of the good/service.

As such, it would be nice if we could drop the pseudo-religious devotion to the free market model (... and the notion of forced equality {a la Canada}) and seriously ask: Is there a better way?

I may not know what it is, but I'm sure there is. Our system may be the best in the world, but if it is, it's only because we can afford to **** away billions and billions of dollars on the inefficiencies in the system.

Personally, I'm not married to any one idea. Show me a better way, and I'm for it.

[fadada1]

if a country doesn't want fatty mcbutterpants to gobble them out of all the freshly squeezed french fries, then by god, they should have that right!!!!!

[Okla-homey]

2. The free market model isn't going to work for any medical system because the basic assumptions that underly the free market model are violated by the very nature of the good/service.


I don't get it.

If Dr. "A" can go into practice, unfettered by a government telling him how much and to whom he can charge for his services, and

If insurance co. "B" goes into business and signs insurance contracts to provide benefits and pay claims unfettered by government telling it with whom it can contract, and how much it can charge, and

If hospital "C" opens its doors unfettered by government telling it how much it can charge for an aspirin or an appendectomy, then,

How is that not the very essence of a free market? IOW, good old capitalism and the inherent goodness of competition will ensure we get the highest quality care we can afford.

I cannot fathom how any "universal healthcare" scheme can hope to function unless those freedoms are severely infringed, if not outright eliminated.

I know our current system has flaws, but I cannot support junking it for some pie in the sky system where everyone who has the sniffles can skip off to the doctor's office and get care without financial consequences.

Even if it stops short of that, and there are co-pays (which IMHO must exist in order to keep hypochondriacs and old folks who are simply bored at home from jamming up the system) and some sort of government-mandated triage to see who gets what and when regarding elective or non-emergent procedures, it's still a recipe for a flippin' nightmare.

I say let's keep what we have and try to burn off the warts versus scrapping the system that has resulted in the world's best healthcare.

[badger]

Someday, there will be a size limit for admittance to bleacher seats like those at Owen Field. Thus, if you exceed such and such a size, you will be required to have two tickets so that you do not infringe on the enjoyment of others who choose to sit in their designated seating area.

Until that time comes, the rest of us will continue renting the $5 seatbacks to ensure that you stay in your designated seating area, or at least stand in the isles and burn some good ol' calories :D

I jest. However, I really do rent seatbacks for this reason. One bad experience at Camp Randall my very first college football game resulted in this. The people around me crowded this little high schooler badger girl right out of a place to sit down.

[Vaevictis]

I don't get it.

If Dr. "A" can go into practice, unfettered by a government telling him how much and to whom he can charge for his services, and

If insurance co. "B" goes into business and signs insurance contracts to provide benefits and pay claims unfettered by government telling it with whom it can contract, and how much it can charge, and

If hospital "C" opens its doors unfettered by government telling it how much it can charge for an aspirin or an appendectomy, then,

How is that not the very essence of a free market? IOW, good old capitalism and the inherent goodness of competition will ensure we get the highest quality care we can afford.

One of the assumptions that must be met for a "free market" to exist and operate is free and easy entry into the market.

Medical professionals don't have free and easy entry -- not even close. Very highly regulated. Take a medical doctor, for example. How many years do they have to be in school? How much money do they have to spend on school? In an internship? How much money and effort is spent on licensure? Insurance? Equipment?

Insurance companies and hospitals, same issue, different causes. Also very highly regulated, even higher entry costs.

Without free entry, the driving force that makes the free market model work -- the idea that profit will induce competitors to enter the market, driving profits down -- the model becomes inefficient at least, and outright breaks at the worst. It's even worse when the good in the market is inelastic (ie, demand does not change much in response to price changes), and as I said before, that's the case in much of the medical industry.

EDIT: With respect to your original comment, the whole "inelastic demand" thing is the real issue there. If you're in a car accident, bleeding out, you're not going to say, "Oh no, your price is too high. No thanks. I think I'll die instead." Free markets just don't work properly when demand is that inelastic. OTOH, elective cosmetic surgery -- yeah, free market is fine there, wrt demand elasticity.


I know our current system has flaws, but I cannot support junking it for some pie in the sky system where everyone who has the sniffles can skip off to the doctor's office and get care without financial consequences.

I am absolutely not for that.


Even if it stops short of that, and there are co-pays (which IMHO must exist in order to keep hypochondriacs and old folks who are simply bored at home from jamming up the system) and some sort of government-mandated triage to see who gets what and when regarding elective or non-emergent procedures, it's still a recipe for a flippin' nightmare.

That's not significantly different than insurance as it is now. And as such, I don't see why that would be much of a problem -- provided there's a private market outlet.

Would it be expensive? Sure. But it's expensive now. And as mdklatt mentioned, the more covered, the lower per individual cost. I just believe that there's a way we can leverage that, but in order to do so, it almost has to be government backed.

And I don't even necessarily believe we have to cut the private sector completely out of it. I expect that it's possible to securitize health insurance policies, and I suspect that might be a decent way to start.


I say let's keep what we have and try to burn off the warts versus scrapping the system that has resulted in the world's best healthcare.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I think that government subsidized with private outlet is a reasonable compromise, but obviously not everyone agrees with me.

[SCOUT]

One of the assumptions that must be met for a "free market" to exist and operate is free and easy entry into the market.

Medical professionals don't have free and easy entry -- not even close. Very highly regulated. Take a medical doctor, for example. How many years do they have to be in school? How much money do they have to spend on school? In an internship? How much money and effort is spent on licensure? Insurance? Equipment?

Isn't this true most highly trained professions? Would say that there isn't free an easy entry into the legal profession? Last I checked, we had plenty of attorneys.


It's even worse when the good in the market is inelastic (ie, demand does not change much in response to price changes), and as I said before, that's the case in much of the medical industry.
I agree with your earlier analogy about the heart transplant but most medical costs are not that extreme. You only have to look at prescription drugs as an example of demand being closely tied to cost. As drugs are categorized in more expensive categories (through most insurance policies) the demand goes down and it increases in the generic version. Also, many employers are changing their benefit plans to reduce premiums by increasing the deductible. The reason is that the higher out of pocket cost keeps John Q. Employee from running to the emergency room every time they have a headache.

I don't have a solution either but I think putting some of the responsibility on the individual would be a good start. If people saw the amount of money health care really costs they would be much less frivolous with the insurance they have.

[Vaevictis]

Isn't this true most highly trained professions? Would say that there isn't free an easy entry into the legal profession? Last I checked, we had plenty of attorneys.

What's plenty? Strip away the regulative barriers to entry; don't you think even more people would enter the market as suppliers, given how much attorneys tend to bill per hour?


I agree with your earlier analogy about the heart transplant but most medical costs are not that extreme. You only have to look at prescription drugs as an example of demand being closely tied to cost. As drugs are categorized in more expensive categories (through most insurance policies) the demand goes down and it increases in the generic version.

It depends on the prescription drug, but in those cases where alternatives are easily available or the lack of the drug isn't going to really **** up your day, yeah, that's true. Of course, we have those niggling little things called patents, and in those cases where the drug is the difference between life and death, you're likely to pay any cost to get it.


Also, many employers are changing their benefit plans to reduce premiums by increasing the deductible. The reason is that the higher out of pocket cost keeps John Q. Employee from running to the emergency room every time they have a headache.

And that's a case where demand is elastic.

Would it make you more comfortable if I were to reiterate my prior statement that I am not for covering every little thing at no cost to the end consumer? I acknowledge that there are certain parts of the medical industry where the market can work, but the whole thing, no way.

There are segments where demand is so utterly inelastic that the market just doesn't work.

[SCOUT]

What's plenty? Strip away the regulative barriers to entry; don't you think even more people would enter the market as suppliers, given how much attorneys tend to bill per hour?
Plenty is the lack of a waiting list for the services. Sure there could be more with less of a barrier but the qualit would go down etc. etc.

It depends on the prescription drug, but in those cases where alternatives are easily available or the lack of the drug isn't going to really **** up your day, yeah, that's true. Of course, we have those niggling little things called patents, and in those cases where the drug is the difference between life and death, you're likely to pay any cost to get it.
I agree. I was trying to show that it isn't inelastic because the extreme cases are extreme and not the norm. There are more prescriptions for allergies, ED, sleep etc, than there are for those that may **** up your day.



Would it make you more comfortable if I were to reiterate my prior statement that I am not for covering every little thing at no cost to the end consumer? I acknowledge that there are certain parts of the medical industry where the market can work, but the whole thing, no way.

There are segments where demand is so utterly inelastic that the market just doesn't work.
I am comfortable either way :D I was wrapping up with my thoughts on what would make a difference in the overall cost to the average American.

[Vaevictis]

Plenty is the lack of a waiting list for the services.

That's one idea of plenty. But that doesn't mean you have sufficient competition to drive prices down to market clearance. Which is, of course, the whole reason you would want a free market.


Sure there could be more with less of a barrier but the qualit would go down etc. etc.

Shouldn't the market decide what level of quality it's willing to accept? ;) That is how it's supposed to work, if you're going to have a free market.


I agree. I was trying to show that it isn't inelastic because the extreme cases are extreme and not the norm. There are more prescriptions for allergies, ED, sleep etc, than there are for those that may **** up your day.

Fair enough. I suspect I wasn't clear enough on my position, really. My idea of "universal coverage" isn't that everyone is covered for everything, but rather that everyone is covered for a certain set of conditions where the only way to extract additional efficiencies is to have everyone covered. This mostly includes life-threatening, or crippling conditions.

[SCOUT]

My idea of "universal coverage" isn't that everyone is covered for everything, but rather that everyone is covered for a certain set of conditions where the only way to extract additional efficiencies is to have everyone covered. This mostly includes life-threatening, or crippling conditions.
So, kind of like universal "major medical" with the rest being up to the individuals/employers/insurance companies?

[soonerboomer93]

I think we should adopt universal healthcare and deny fatties, smokers, and stupid people. By stupid people I mean those who blow up their meth lab and get third degree burns all over their bodies and such, not the guy who falls off a ladder putting up Santa on the roof. It may sound harsh, but we need to thin the herd.

can we start with you?

[Vaevictis]

So, kind of like universal "major medical" with the rest being up to the individuals/employers/insurance companies?

Kind of, yeah.

I think more would be nice, but more would also be luxury.

But universal major medical... well, I haven't done any studies, but I believe that it would be considerably more efficient than what we have, at least when looking at the economy as a whole.

[soonerboomer93]

Someday, there will be a size limit for admittance to bleacher seats like those at Owen Field. Thus, if you exceed such and such a size, you will be required to have two tickets so that you do not infringe on the enjoyment of others who choose to sit in their designated seating area.

Until that time comes, the rest of us will continue renting the $5 seatbacks to ensure that you stay in your designated seating area, or at least stand in the isles and burn some good ol' calories :D

I jest. However, I really do rent seatbacks for this reason. One bad experience at Camp Randall my very first college football game resulted in this. The people around me crowded this little high schooler badger girl right out of a place to sit down.

real fans stand for the game

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm so glad that someone in this thread appears to have actually attended an economics class once or twice.

[Vaevictis]

Hooray for like, education and stuff.

[SCOUT]

I'm so glad that someone in this thread appears to have actually attended an economics class once or twice.
Don't turn this thread into academic economics vs. real world economics ;)

[jwlynn64]

I think that you all and NZ miss the real point. They should let smokers, fat people, etc... into the country.

Will they have to use resources? Probably but their lifestyle is so bad they will be the first ones to die. In that sense, they actually end up using less resources.

I think that they real reason is that they think there will be another hobbit movie and they only want to admit tall, slim people that they can use as extras for the elf scenes. IMHO ;)

[mdklatt]

Okay, here's the main problem--definition of terms. What one side means by "universal health care" is not what the other side means at all, and a lot of wasted effort gets directed at strawmen. I don't think anybody is advocating a completely socialized system, like what they have in Canada. Most of the plans I've seen simply want to take the burden of providing health insurance off of employers and put it on the government. Whatever we do, we clearly have to do something. Paying for the uninsured to go to the ER but not for the preventative care that would prevent the ER visit in the first place is idiotic. Denying easy access to medical care in the age of "superbugs" and bioterrorism is idiotic. Why should you care if some homeless guy can go to a doctor or not? You'll care if he's patient zero in an anthrax outbreak.

[badger]

real fans stand for the game
hehe, ok then, I want my designated standing space, too :)

[Okieflyer]

The bottom line is Socialism would work GREAT. That is everyone were robots.

But throw people with free will in the mix...well just go crack some history books and check out what has already happened. It's sad, but true. Just like that welfare thing worked out so well. You can't give away free stuff.

I agree it's sad, but the cure sometimes is worse than the disease.

[jwlynn64]

Okay, here's the main problem--definition of terms. What one side means by "universal health care" is not what the other side means at all, and a lot of wasted effort gets directed at strawmen. I don't think anybody is advocating a completely socialized system, like what they have in Canada. Most of the plans I've seen simply want to take the burden of providing health insurance off of employers and put it on the government. Whatever we do, we clearly have to do something. Paying for the uninsured to go to the ER but not for the preventative care that would prevent the ER visit in the first place is idiotic. Denying easy access to medical care in the age of "superbugs" and bioterrorism is idiotic. Why should you care if some homeless guy can go to a doctor or not? You'll care if he's patient zero in an anthrax outbreak.

You are making the assumption that health insurance pays for preventative visits.

At my current job, our health care only pays $200/person a year for preventative visits. That may sound like it is enough but it is not enough to cover the immunizations that my two small children are required to have, it will not cover a gynecological exam, a normal physical and the mammogram that my 41 year old wife is supposed to have and it probably wouldn't cover a full physical for myself (over 40).

Now if I get sick and go see my doctor then everything is covered except for my co-pay.

The $200 helps but it seems to me like they are actually discouraging normal preventative visits by not providing enough coverage. I have to wonder if a universal health care plan would do any better.

[the_ouskull]

I think we should adopt universal healthcare and deny fatties, smokers, and stupid people. By stupid people I mean those who blow up their meth lab and get third degree burns all over their bodies and such, not the guy who falls off a ladder putting up Santa on the roof. It may sound harsh, but we need to thin the herd.

I agree with this, oddly enough, and would like to see it taken a step further...

We already have it in place that kids aren't allowed to get their license until they pass some kind of reading course in 9th grade. I'd like to take that a step further. I think that 1) kids should have to perform in the top 75% on the 8th grade reading EOI's to be able to take Driver's Education. 2) they should be required to take Driver's Education before they are able to obtain their license. 3) if they cannot or do not take Driver's Education, OR pass their 8th grade EOI's, then they have to wait until they graduate from High School to get their driver's license. No GED's. Graduation.

And, on a more personal note (and I'm not entirely kidding) here: 4) I think that anybody who fails to graduate from High School, or receive their GED by their 19th birthday, should report to the nearest medical clinic to get sterilized.

Our prison's are crowded because of high school dropouts and illiterates. Many of the problems we face financially in this country are because we are spending more money on keeping the lazy, ignorant, and (willingly) uneducated alive than we are on improving the quality of the lives of those who chose to take advantage of the free public education we were offered and tried to make something of ourselves other than being the kid that sits in the back of the classroom, talking to their friends and failing their way through school thanks to "No Child Left Behind." I'd just as soon leave all of those dumb motherf*ckers behind. If they're too stupid to take advantage of the things in life which they are given, then if we tie their tubes, male or female, then at least the cycle of ignorance and poverty can end with THEM. Maybe eventually, people would catch on. I'd rather everybody in our country was competing for the same good jobs than me having a decent job and worrying about some crackhead dropout breaking into my place. I hate stupid people soooo much...

the_ouskull

[mdklatt]

The $200 helps but it seems to me like they are actually discouraging normal preventative visits by not providing enough coverage. I have to wonder if a universal health care plan would do any better.

If free market health care was so great you could just shop around for a better plan, but it's not that easy is it? You are constrained by what your employer offers, and you're further constrained by your insurance company as to the doctors you can see and facilities you can you use. You can try to get your own plan--if you can afford it. If you waive coverage does your employer give you the money they would have spent on you? OU does, but I don't think all places do. Maybe you should just move to Oklahoma and get a job at OU--problem solved.

Furthermore, why should we have to change doctors every time we change jobs, or every time our employer changes health care plans? Continuity of care--staying with the same doctor--is a huge factor in quality of care. I'm on my third or fourth PCP because OU has changed providers a lot the past few years. Ironically, I'm back to where I started with when I first started working here.

Would a government-administered plan be better? I don't know, but taking the profit motive out of the insurance side of things couldn't hurt, could it? I have no idea what the margins are for insurance companies, but imagine reinvesting that into actual expenses instead. For the record, I am not advocating socialized health care where the doctors are all government employees. Doctors and hospitals could still compete for patients, but 300 million insureds backed by the US government would theoretically have a lot more bargaining power to get the best deals from providers. You don't even have to do away with insurance companies. Instead of Aetna or Cigna negotiating with your employer, they'd be negotiating with the government. And they could still offer insurance to anybody who wanted additional coverage or didn't like the government options. Universal health care doesn't mean that everybody has the same insurance, but that everybody has some type of insurance.

[Curly Bill]

I agree with this, oddly enough, and would like to see it taken a step further...

We already have it in place that kids aren't allowed to get their license until they pass some kind of reading course in 9th grade. I'd like to take that a step further. I think that 1) kids should have to perform in the top 75% on the 8th grade reading EOI's to be able to take Driver's Education. 2) they should be required to take Driver's Education before they are able to obtain their license. 3) if they cannot or do not take Driver's Education, OR pass their 8th grade EOI's, then they have to wait until they graduate from High School to get their driver's license. No GED's. Graduation.

And, on a more personal note (and I'm not entirely kidding) here: 4) I think that anybody who fails to graduate from High School, or receive their GED by their 19th birthday, should report to the nearest medical clinic to get sterilized.

Our prison's are crowded because of high school dropouts and illiterates. Many of the problems we face financially in this country are because we are spending more money on keeping the lazy, ignorant, and (willingly) uneducated alive than we are on improving the quality of the lives of those who chose to take advantage of the free public education we were offered and tried to make something of ourselves other than being the kid that sits in the back of the classroom, talking to their friends and failing their way through school thanks to "No Child Left Behind." I'd just as soon leave all of those dumb motherf*ckers behind. If they're too stupid to take advantage of the things in life which they are given, then if we tie their tubes, male or female, then at least the cycle of ignorance and poverty can end with THEM. Maybe eventually, people would catch on. I'd rather everybody in our country was competing for the same good jobs than me having a decent job and worrying about some crackhead dropout breaking into my place. I hate stupid people soooo much...

the_ouskull

I agree entirely! ...but it's so politically incorrect.

Heh, maybe that's why I like it.

[Vaevictis]

The bottom line is Socialism would work GREAT. That is everyone were robots.

But throw people with free will in the mix...well just go crack some history books and check out what has already happened. It's sad, but true. Just like that welfare thing worked out so well. You can't give away free stuff.

I agree it's sad, but the cure sometimes is worse than the disease.

Yeah, cracking some history books is a good idea. So is taking a broad look, instead of cherry-picking a few cases that don't necessarily represent the whole. (You do realize that there are cases where socialized medicine works pretty well, right? Maybe instead of having this knee-jerk reaction against socialized medicine, supported by cherry-picking say, the Soviet Union, we could actually learn something by taking a look at what makes such systems work, and what makes them not work?)

Then, why don't you look at our own system in the here and now, and ask, "Really, what's so great about the system?" Because, just so you know, being so wealthy that you have the ability to **** away billions of dollars on waste so that you get a pretty good result... that just means that there's something wrong with the system, but you're willing to throw so much money at it that you still get a reasonably good result. It doesn't actually mean your system is any good.

[Okieflyer]

Yeah, cracking some history books is a good idea. So is taking a broad look, instead of cherry-picking a few cases that don't necessarily represent the whole. (You do realize that there are cases where socialized medicine works pretty well, right? Maybe instead of having this knee-jerk reaction against socialized medicine, supported by cherry-picking say, the Soviet Union, we could actually learn something by taking a look at what makes such systems work, and what makes them not work?)

Then, why don't you look at our own system in the here and now, and ask, "Really, what's so great about the system?" Because, just so you know, being so wealthy that you have the ability to **** away billions of dollars on waste so that you get a pretty good result... that just means that there's something wrong with the system, but you're willing to throw so much money at it that you still get a reasonably good result. It doesn't actually mean your system is any good.

Really? Where has it worked? Canada? France? I don't think so.

[Vaevictis]

The Scandanavian systems have had some considerable success. The British system has some good facets as well.

(Personally, one of the things I really like about the British system is that they have National Insurance -- which ain't perfect by any means -- but you can also go private if you can afford it.)

[Mongo]

move to Scandanavia, dont **** up my health care

[SCOUT]

If free market health care was so great you could just shop around for a better plan, but it's not that easy is it? You are constrained by what your employer offers, and you're further constrained by your insurance company as to the doctors you can see and facilities you can you use. You can try to get your own plan--if you can afford it. If you waive coverage does your employer give you the money they would have spent on you? OU does, but I don't think all places do. Maybe you should just move to Oklahoma and get a job at OU--problem solved.

Furthermore, why should we have to change doctors every time we change jobs, or every time our employer changes health care plans? Continuity of care--staying with the same doctor--is a huge factor in quality of care. I'm on my third or fourth PCP because OU has changed providers a lot the past few years. Ironically, I'm back to where I started with when I first started working here.
You can shop around on your own if you want. The rates you will find aren't that great because you will essentially be self-insuring. :) More and more companies are moving to passing the savings along to their employees.

In your first paragraph you say that you can't shop around for better rates and then in the second complain that your employer changed providers. You do realize that they changed providers to keep rates as low as possible right? The vast majority of employers shop their plans every single year to keep the cost to the employee as low as possible.

I agree that continuity of care is important and most folks would agree. I have seen a trend where the HMO concept is consistently being replaced by the PPO.

[jwlynn64]

The Scandanavian systems have had some considerable success. The British system has some good facets as well.

(Personally, one of the things I really like about the British system is that they have National Insurance -- which ain't perfect by any means -- but you can also go private if you can afford it.)

If I'm not mistaken, the medical plan in Great Britain is bankrupt. This was in the news about two months ago. Of course my memory isn't what it used to be (and it has never been that good!) ;)

[Vaevictis]

I'm betting that it's not, considering that I've got family under the plan whose doctors are still getting paid ;)

It is, however, having issues with rising medical costs... not that that's any different than in any other system currently.

[Rogue]

Actually, military and VA healthcare have had watershed moments. Mostly during times of war. Some of the best medical research has been done in VA and military healthcare facilities. Battlefield medicine today is often > what I can get at any community hospital within 6 hours of where I live.

I'm a fairly sophisticated consumer, have very good insurance, and choose to go to the local VA and pay my copayments. Yeah, I work there and, yeah, I deal with patients tranferring to and from other private and DoD facilities daily. Since VA patients belong to that healthcare system for life (not cradle-to-grave, but from discharge to grave) preventive medicine is in the best interest of the VA...in theory keeping costs down during that pesky last 15% of our lives when we use 90% of the our lifetime healthcare resources.

Not saying it's the only answer but there are some efficiencies and advantages to what VA healthcare offers.

The point I made earlier about geriatric medicine should be noted. VA restricts eligibility for this because it can be outrageously expensive. Same reason states do.

The place to start to 'socialize' medicine is there...long term care.