Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Control Your Own Health Care
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Candidates for president have plans to get more people health insurance. Some would compel us to buy it; others would use the tax code to encourage that. Regardless, insurance is the magic that will solve our health-care problems.

But contrary to conventional wisdom, it's not those without health insurance who are the problem, but rather those with it. They make medical care more expensive for everyone.

We'd each be better off if we paid all but the biggest medical bills out of pocket and saved insurance for catastrophic events. Truly needy people would rely on charity, not government, because once government gets involved, unintended bad consequences abound.

If people paid their own bills, they would likely buy high-deductible insurance (roughly $1,000 for individuals, $2,100 for families) because on average, the premium is $1,300 cheaper. But people are so conditioned to expect others to pay their medical bills that they hate high deductibles: They feel ripped off if they must pay a thousand dollars before the insurance company starts paying.

But high deductibles may be the key to lowering costs and putting you in charge of your health care.

Five years ago, the Whole Foods grocery chain switched to a high-deductible plan. If an employee has a sore throat or a sprained ankle, he pays. But if he gets cancer or heart disease, his insurance covers it.

Whole Foods puts around $1,500 a year into an account for each employee. It's not charity but part of the employee's compensation. It's money Whole Foods would have otherwise spent on more-expensive insurance. Here's the good part for employees: If they don't spend the money on medical care this year, they keep it, and the company adds more next year.

It's called a health savings account, or HSA.

CEO John Mackey told me that when he went to the new system, "Our costs went way down."

Yet today, some workers have $8,000 in their accounts.

"That's their money," Mackey said. "It builds up over time because the money is compounding for them."

It will cover all sorts of future out-of-pocket expenses.

Most important, since employees control the money, their behavior changed. Whole Foods workers started asking "how much things cost," Mackey said. "They may not want to go to the emergency room if they wake up with a hangnail in the middle of the night. They may schedule an appointment now."

There was no need to ask about costs before because the insurance company seemed to pick up the tab. But that drove up costs for everyone. Now, saving money makes sense to employees because the money belongs to them.

HSA critics ask whether individual accounts will encourage people to save money at the expense of their health.

Mackey has the right response. "The premise in those kinds of questions is that people are stupid. They're not smart enough to make these decisions for themselves. It's sort of an elitist attitude. The individual is the best judge of what's right for the individual."

And apparently, most individuals are making smart choices.

Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger says studies show that "people who have these high-deductible health-insurance policies take a lot better care of themselves. They have more yearly physicals. Because they're saying, 'If I keep myself healthy, in the long run, I'm going to be spending less money.'"

The critics also argue that spending on health care is too complicated and important for individuals to control.

Mackey isn't buying it. "Should we allow people to make decisions about whether they have children or not? I mean, that's a pretty important responsibility!"

I pointed out that most people know nothing about complex cancer treatments.

"I don't know anything about cars," he said. "But if I buy a Toyota or an Audi or a Lexus, I know I'm going to get a pretty good automobile because competition ensures that it will be that way."

It does. And competition will do the same in medical care. All we need to do is put the individual in charge of his own money.

Next week: Where competitive health care is already working.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Thank you, John
Good of you to agree with me!

I mean, it's almost like Stossel reads my forum postings for notes --

!!

John
Your missing the point. If we have the government provide health insurance for everyone, then there really is no reason for people to worry about having a job. No job? Dont worry we have welfare and a thousand other programs to keep you in section 8 housing, unwed, and breeding. We will even foot the bill for all of each kid you have. Everyday we take another step towards the utopia that is the dream of the left.


John
Your missing the point. If we have the government provide health insurance for everyone, then there really is no reason for people to worry about having a job. No job? Dont worry we have welfare and a thousand other programs to keep you in section 8 housing, unwed, and breeding. We will even foot the bill for all of each kid you have. Everyday we take another step towards the utopia that is the dream of the left.


Selective giving
This would become a country of selective charity. Look what we've done to the victims of Katrina. Look what is still happening at Walter Reed.

I'm wondering how much Stossel would give of his own money to help the poor in need? Haven't we seen already just how unwilling certain (republican) Americans are when it comes to giving the needy a hand up? Heck, listen to screaming from the right over the idea of funding a baby bond! It's okay to fund an illegal war, but not needy babies!


NEEDY BABIES???
So many POOR CHILDREN??? How many binkies can one baby buy??

NO! Their parents may not have enough money, but WHEN did CHILDREN become POOR???

Health Savings Plans make excellent sense. Maybe if enough people REFUSE those needless tests, doctors will stop prescribing them and ALL costs will go down. And if the 'practice' of medicine is between the patient and doctor (NOT government or lawyers or insurance companies) we can start trusting those doctors to do the RIGHT thing - maybe even offer choices.

Talisman
you cannot be serious? Needy babies? You reached down deep for that one. Your ignoring every negative consequence of this trash and putting the poor sickly baby on the stand as your poster child so to speak. No one wants to see a little baby go without health care. The innocent (mentaly retarted, children, and the disabled) should get help. If your able bodied however, and you havent been working, sorry buddy. I dont want the government reaching into my wallet and stealing from me to pay for your lazy butt. Its bad enough able bodied people collect welfare checks like the government is their employer, you want me to pay for their Tylenol too? Dont bring the war into it, try and stay on topic.

Talisman the ignorant!
>Haven't we seen already just how unwilling certain (republican) Americans are when it comes to giving the needy a hand up?<

This is typical liberal BS - liberals always want to spend other people's money, just so they can feel good about helping the needy.

Yeah, well, here are some inconvenient truths for ya! The author expected to find that liberals were oh so generous, but guess what? It was conservatives, especially religious conservatives, who turned out to be the most generous of their time and money.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216/ref=sr_1_1/104-0272747-9295107?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191387819&sr=1-1

John hits the nail
somewhere on top. But maybe the question should be asked and asked honestly - what is it that drives health care costs? The right says too much litigation, unneccesary tests and low deductibles. So why then do we accept the high cost of medicine as just a part of doing business? Certainly the prescribing of unneeded medicine and the resulting overcharge should be a part of the conversation.

Health savings acounts would be
great. I also think you want to cut cost require all care providers to install and allow for the use of cash registers. About ten years ago I cut myself with a chainsaw. I had stopped the bleeding and went to a clinic. I went to two clinics and then returned to my old home town doc before anyone would accept cash payment. The others wanted insurance

Yes, Mr. Stossel, this column
deserves 5 stars! Now if it were only possible to get Congress to understand it as well! Solo 610 is right when saying, "Everyday we take another step towards the utopia that is the dream of the left." Bringing back individual responsibility is one answer to this frightening scenario.

We have had our HSA for several years (had we understood it more we would have opened one much sooner!) We have been able to put aside several thousand dollars each year because we are allowed to put aside the amount of our deductible each year (as a tax deduction.)This money sits in our HSA account and can be used to pay for medical expenses. The only drawback is when you have a high, high deductible ($5000 or more) and if you use it up with one hospitalization then you have to build up the HSA account again in case you would need it the following year. This can be difficult if someone is being hospitalized often.

We still see our doctors (and pay for our visits) and we still take our prescriptions (and pay for them too.) We have always taken pretty good care of ourselves, so whether the HSA made a difference or not is up for debate. Even with the negatives of HSA's, the positive benefits of these plans far outweigh socialized medicine of any kind.




Comment
I shop often at WholeFoods and have never seen an employee there who looks older than thirty. Healthcare Savings Accounts might be fine for the young and healthy---but they would be a disaster for older Americans or the chronically ill. Or suppose your thirtyish fit Yuppie has a child who is soon diagnosed with juvenile diabetes or cystic fibrosis: what percent of family income will now be spent for those paid-out-of-pocket medical bills? Another point: healthy folks who don't think they need health insurance even when they get sick are unlikely to think they'll need it when they're well, so that preventive care, screening tests, and routine exams are likely not to happen.

Selective giving??
Conservatives give more money, a greater percentage of their income, and more of their time to charity than self-described liberals.

And the "victims of Katrina" have so far received 147 billion, if I remember correctly, which works out to about $435,000 per person. That doesn't sound too stingy to me. But with the government involved, lots of it was probably wasted. Just like any other government run program. Just like it would be in any government run health care program....

Your right Lilly
people are too stupid to be in charge of how thier $ is spent or not spent on medical care.

They have no business determining whether they should go to preventive care, screening tests, or routine exams. These should be enforced by the GOVT. with penalties to those who do not obey (maybe a little jailtime)

We need to make sure that individuals have no control over how thier $ is spent on healthcare... then when it gets BAD... (premiums, service, care)

And trust me folks it will only get worse... HILLARY can jump in and save us all with UNIVERSAL care....
YEAAAA

Lilly, your so smart

The Truth is Powerful
Stossel tells the truth, and it drives the lefties crazy.

Citizens in a free society should be empowered to make their own decisions about healthcare.

People are better stewards of health care dollars when they have an ownership stake in decision making.

People who believe that "someone else" is paying for their healthcare are less concerned about costs, unnecessary or frivolous tests and procedures, and have less of an incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.

I'm grateful for the Talisman's postings, as well as those of his lefty friends. The lack of reasoned argument. Rationalizations that are diametrically opposed to the great ideals of freedom and liberty upon which this nation was founded. The obfuscation of facts. All helps underscore how wrong the left is on every major topic of the day.

Thanks John Stossel, for speaking the truth.

And thanks Talisman, for not being on my side.

Stossel has it backwards!
John Stossel has to get out of the pockets of his advertisers. There is no such thing as competition in the health care industry. Never has been and never will be. Having been in health care for 35 years, I can assure you that people will not seek out the lowest bidder when it comes to health care. Just the reverse will be true.

See the health care versus political money discussion at "The high cost of our privatized electoral system" at http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/the-high-cost-of-our-privatized-electoral-system/

Don't be silly, jlohman
No one looks for just the lowest bidder in anything. People look for the best price/quality. Governments do tend to look for the lowest bidder though. And 35 years ago few people paid out of their own pocket. Third parties paid most medical expenses, the same as now. Do you seriously think that if people were spending their own money they would look for the highest price? Do you make any decisions that way?

Excellent Point
Stossels' point is basic economics. One cannot solve the problem of high prices by adding more money to the demand side of a "supply and demand" market based system. This is the effect of "universal insurance." The price of a scarce resource (health care) will continue to go up when the amount of money available for the service (demand) increases.

These costs will only normalize when either the supply of healthcare is increased, or the demand is decreased. Stossel is 100% correct. Those with Insurance create a larger demand on the system than those without.

A Small Aside.
If not for Medicare, the booming gambling casino industry in America would not exist. I suggest you visit one a few times and take note of the age of over 50% of the patrons. Yes, the money you are paying for Medicare is pored into the slots, and handed across the gaming table 24/7.

I also get the idea that all Americans, from the extreme left to the extreme right, are socialists, when it comes to health care.

At my company ..
.. I offered my employees a choice between traditional (PPO) and HSA (with $50/mo employer contribution). The expenditure per employee is the same for my company.

Initially, there was a 'fear of the unknown'. In the first year, about 50% of the employees opted for the HSA. As an employee/owner I opted for the HSA for myself (and family).

Now in the second year, 66% of the employees opted for the HSA. Mainly this occured because more employees realized that it left more money in their pocket.

Some think of it as a 401(k) for healthcare! And that is not a bad analogy. The Govt permits Employees to contribute pretax dollars on a voluntary basis (up to the annual deductible).

It would be nicer if the annual limit was higher - it could actually become a tax shelter for more people. Having more investment choices would also make it more attractive.

Lilly is wrong when she says that those with serious health problems wouldn't benefit from HSAs. The reality is that HSAs benefit those with either:
* infrequent usage (folks who are generally healthy)
* high usage (folks who routinely hit their annual deductibles)

However, HSAs (in their current form) result in more out-of-pocket expense than traditional PPOs for those who are on regular, expensive medication. But that would change if MORE people opted for HSAs.

Conclusion: HSAs work! While the rules can (and should) be improved (e.g. increase the voluntary, pretax contribution limit), they are a step in the right direction.

A 10 year plan to fix Healthcare
PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* Medicare/Medicaid vouchers for the poor and elderly - yes, this perpetuates the status quo, but fairness dictates a short term 'amnesty'
* cease Medicare 'deduction' and employer match
* return the previously extorted Medicare funds (with interest) into the Health Savings Accounts of individuals
* continue tax deductibility of Health Savings Accounts - employers may choose to contribute into the Health Savings Accounts of their employees
* fee for service begins to eliminate the need for insurance companies EXCEPT for catastrophic coverage
* costs start to come down (supply-and-demand at work)

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* Healthcare vouchers ONLY for the poor and/or for those who are above a certain 'cut-off' age
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of Health Savings Accounts

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more Medicare, Medicaid etc.
* the poor are helped by voluntary, private charity
* Return to fee-for-service
* Health insurance is relegated to its rightful status - as a hedge against catastrophic illness

Opponents will charge that it is too cold & heartless. Inevitably there will be some who can't afford medical care, requiring private charity to intercede on their behalf. In reality, the lower costs would ensure that there would be a decrease in the number of people who can't afford medical care.

Actually our healthcare system is less screwed up than our education system! At least Govt does not (with some exceptions) own and operate most of the hospitals. So, the above solution is easier than my proposal for fixing K-12 education [ http://voice.townhall.com ]

The above solutions do not 'feel good', but they will work. However, it may be difficult to get a Presidential candidate to take this 'tough love' approach - for fear that it may not resonate in present-day Peoria where populism prevails.

“you breed ‘em, you feed ‘em”
talisman writes:, 03, 2007 12:43 AM
Selective giving
This would become a country of selective charity. Look what we've done to the victims of Katrina. Look what is still happening at Walter Reed.

I'm wondering how much Stossel would give of his own money to help the poor in need? Haven't we seen already just how unwilling certain (republican) Americans are when it comes to giving the needy a hand up? Heck, listen to screaming from the right over the idea of funding a baby bond! It's okay to fund an illegal war, but not needy babies!

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I know talisman is being facetious but for the moveon.org crowd let me explain his points. Katrina is the poster child of the consequences of “free”. It probably was the most free left wing internment camp in AmeriKa. These people became zoo animals for the liberal keepers. The animals do their “vote” trick every four years and they can get free everything. Finally they became dependent on the zoo keeper to wipe their butt when the poooped.

Of course Walter Reed is the reason why we don’t want federal health care.

Studies show that conservative AmeriKans out give the libtards exponentially. It is merely a world view difference. Conservatives believe giving is something you do with your own money, and libtards believe it is something you do with your neighbors money.

Of course talisman explains yet more moral hazard for us. You encourage babies the parents would not have if they had to pay for education and healthcare. When you can enslave your neighbor to raise your kid under forced welfare you can download as many as possible. In the religious conservative South we have a saying, “you breed ‘em, you feed ‘em”.

Loyal Conservative, 03, 2007 1:23 AM

…The right says too much litigation, unneccesary tests and low deductibles. So why then do we accept the high cost of medicine as just a part of doing business? Certainly the prescribing of unneeded medicine and the resulting overcharge should be a part of the conversation.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

When it is free you want as much of the most expensive stuff available. Reminds me of a client of mine who owned slum properties in Htfd CT, (40 years ago). He panicked when the city started sending out workers to convince his tenants to move to the city’s new beautiful giver-ment housing. He said I’m paying property taxes for the giver-ment to compete against me. Well he calmed down real quick. What the tenants did is keep both. The new one they used for weekends like a vacation home. It was free why not.

HSA would be great if. . .
My company offers a program that includes HSA, but unfortunately it works on a "use it or lose it" basis. In other words, if you accrue it this year you have to use it this year or it goes away.

No incentive there to use it, since how many of us are seers that know to the dollar how much out-of-pocket money we're going to have to spend this year?

If the idea of a pre-tax HSA is going to work, there needs to be a permanence - money saved there remains there until it is needed.

Its been demonstrated before
When your business gives you a week of sick days to use, and pays you at the end of the year for those you do not take, people show up at work instead of taking what is cutely called *mental health days* which is what they do when its use it or lose it. My first year in Kanukistan I was given no vacation time at all, nor was I told I was entitled to any (working for a Labour lawyer!) until the end of the year when the bookkeeper asked me if I wanted to be paid for the vacation time I did not know I had coming to me, or carry it over. That was in the days before racing, so I took the money. At my current job it is use it or lose it, so this week and next week nobody can get floater help because everyone is on holiday.

If you offer people cash or carry, they will take the cash about 80% of the time.

lilly writes:, 03, 2007 2:15 AM


Or suppose your thirtyish fit Yuppie has a child who is soon diagnosed with juvenile diabetes or cystic fibrosis: what percent of family income will now be spent for those paid-out-of-pocket medical bills? Another point: healthy folks who don't think they need health insurance even when they get sick are unlikely to think they'll need it when they're well, so that preventive care, screening tests, and routine exams are likely not to happen.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Lilly I know libtards love to make law based on the exception not the norm, but that still results in bad law. I think HSAs let you use your built up savings accounts to cover your high deductible. I’m in my 60’s, have an HSA and don’t even bother funding the tax free savings part, because I’m saving so much on premiums and I’m too lazy to keep up with the savings account stuff.

The thirty year old putting $1,500 away a year (which still means a low deductible for that small savings) would have saved some $15,000 from age 20 to 30. With a 5-6% CD he’d be around $25,000. With that $25,000 he’d now use it to pay his deductible which for $1,500 savings would probably be $3K per year. Adding $1,500 a year to the savings and drawing $3K out for the deductible means he’d use up $1,500 of his annual interest and still keep building his savings at a lower increase with the unused interest.

To: ItsTheBasics
What you are describing is FSA (old), not HSA (relatively new).

HSAs do NOT have a use-it-or-lose-it provision.

As they say in the commercials: "Ask your employer about it!"

I hate to sound like a Govt shill ..

Talisman
Why would you make the assumption that John Stossel doesn't help the poor? And assuming he does, I could only imagine how much more he would give if he wasn't turning over half his income to the most inefficient charitable organization ever - the government.

voice of reason
Thanks on the clarification on the HSA vs FSA. I, like, "itsthebasics" am under the assumption that it's still use it or lose it under my companie's plan.

Oh yeah, Lilly? You still don't get it!

jlohman writes:, 03, 2007 4:01 AM

… no … competition in the health care. Never has been and never will be. ….people will not seek out the lowest bidder….

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Health care doesn’t violate the laws of economics. It may be the most socialized industry in AmeriKa. We had socialized rails, but trucks offered the relief. We had socialized airlines, but Reagan offered the relief. We had socialized ATT, but Judge Green offered the relief. When I was in health care 60 years ago (as a patient not nurse like you most likely) we had strong competition. Doctors would do anything to get a customer.

Of course folks don’t question fees today because they don’t pay them like they did 60 years ago. Now I being older and having always shopped prices still check healthcare cost and generally find a 300% difference in prices.


Consider mobile medical units. They do all your blood work for about 1/3 the price of a doctor visit. A heart scan at the doctors is $800.00 without insurance, $500 if insured. The mobile van is $129. The problem is that the industry will try to ban any competition through legislation just as national health care will do. I’m in a state that won’t allow a company to sell eye glasses and have a company paid doctor do eye exams in the same location. So eye care and glasses are expensive. 10 miles over the state line however you can get an eye exam and glasses for about 1/3 the cost. If you really want to save yet more you can get the glasses online. I ordered a pair of bifocals delivered for $18 and did the exam over the line. My exam and glasses came to $43. My girlfriend has always hated my glasses but now says I must wear these because they are awesome.


You don’t have much competition in the medical industry because competition has been driven out. Get giver-ment out, then insurance will change dramatically with tailored policies such that I don’t have to pay for everybody’s pregnancy care when men don’t get pregnant, but law requires I subsidize it.

Fred writes: 03, 2007 7:38 AM

Talisman
Why would you make the assumption that John Stossel doesn't help the poor? And assuming he does, I could only imagine how much more he would give if he wasn't turning over half his income to the most inefficient charitable organization ever - the government.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Fred, good point. Giver-ment gets only 24 cents on the dollar to the recipient after they take their cut whereas Salvation Armey gets 80% to the user. If folks were really concerned about the poor rather than using them as a pawn to build bigger giver-ment then they'd let us keep our money to expand our giving to the end user.

talisman
Selective giving? YGBSM. You have obviously not seen or read Stossel's investigations into who gives more. In every instance small town conservatives with modest incomes regularly give more both on relative and absolute basis than their higher income liberal bretheren. Also, after Katrina, private citizens reached into their own pockets to donate over a billion bucks to various chariries. The problem with libs is they think the taxes they pay are a form of charity. What's the difference? You won't be thrown in jail for not donating to the Red Cross. Please base your arguements on reality or go back to MoreOn.arghh.

AIDS Syndrome!
Sorry for the AIDS Syndrome acronym. I did not create it; a friend did. And it is not used in any negative way! He did it to idenitfy & then illistrate how to deal with certain people in the work and world environment. The AIDS refers to you cannot "Argue with Ingnorance nor Debate with Stupidity". He uses this to explain there are AIDS people in this world & you must identify & deal with them differently.

Why do I post this here? There are today to many people who think, "Don't confuse me with any facts, I have already made up my mind". They ignore facts and related analyses, such as this article provides. How do we change this attitude? I have no idea given the liberals strangle hold on the distribution & open, objective & factual discussions of key issues for this country, such as healthcare!

IMHO!

If we accept the premise
that health care is a necessity and therefore must be available to every person in the U.S. then we must accept the logical extension that food, clothing and shelter (being even more necessary than health care) must also be made available free of charge to anyone who chooses not to pay for their own. If we are also willing to cede total control of the health care delivery system to the government we should also cede control of food, clothing and shelter delivery to the government. In other words, if you are willing to let the government control health care, you should be willing to let the government control what, how much and when you eat, what you wear, and where and in what type of housing you live.

If you are unwilling to give that much control to the government, you had better be willint to buck up and take responsibility for your own health care. If you don't, the government will take over the other 3 and much sooner than you'd like to think. All of the seeds are already in place.

Stossel is right on with HSA's.

Talisman, Lilly
Talisman,
You're way off base. Again. There was book that was published that reveals who gives and who doesn't. SURPRISE! Those generous lefties don't give anywhere near as much as those mean ole selfish conservatives. And giving was measured in time, talent, and treasure. So, clean up your own house before you try to straighten up someone elses.

Lilly,
You need to do a little homework on HDHP's (High Deductible Health Plans) before you start your knee-jerk ranting opposing all things non-government controlled. My HDHP has a deductible of $4000/family, $2200/individual. Once those deductibles are met, medical expenses are covered at 100%. Any unused money in the HSA rolls over from year to year like an IRA or 401k. The goal is to build a nice sized account while your younger and healthier so you have the necessary money available when you're older. I'm 48 and finally have the type of plan I wish were available to me 27 years ago when I first started working for Hughes Aircraft.

There is no “price” competition.
Before I retired several years ago, I spent 25 years as owner of a mobile echocardiograph service. I owned the $60k van, the $150k scanner, employed the $60k technician, and went to clinics and charged $300 for every test. The clinics would charge Medicare $400 for the test with their $100 markup for interpretation. They'd typically charge the “privatized” insurers $1500-$1800 for the same procedure. Why? Because they could.

Patients typically do not check prices. They trust their doctor if their doctor has good bedside manners. Otherwise they find another doctor.

There is no “price” competition. But they do get upset if the doctor does not order a test they feel they should have. And if the doctor has ownership in the testing service, which is now legal, he is more than happy to order the test. After all, he makes a profit.

At the level I was at their was competition between ourselves and other mobile services, but the doctor's savings in reduced prices were never passed on to the insurer or patient; they were pocketed.

Hospitals do compete for patients to fill their beds. They advertise on TV with “glamor,” not low price. They are now hiring their own physician staff, and then pressuring them to do more tests and fill more beds, and sending them the patients they got from their advertising. That's our free market for you.

Voice of Reason and Not Ashamed ...
Check out the new contribution laws concerning the amount you can deposit in your HSA. At the very end of last year, 2006, the amounts changed. Even though our deductible is $4k, I can contribute up to $5600. People who are older are allowed to contribute even more.

Lilly
Lilly, you're making things up without doing a lick of research and it makes you look silly.

The reason you see young people in the Whole Foods stores are because those are entry level positions. As people graduate from college they move up the ranks or out of the company to other opportunities. The chain has a long proud history of promoting from within and including even the lowest tier employees in their benefit plans, like stock options. (Of course, they had to scale those back after the government "helped" by rewriting the rules.) Go check it out - people who have been at the store for 10+ years usually get to pay cash for their houses, because they sharing the free market sucesses of the company.

DOn't get started though - I already know your biggest objection to the Whole Foods business model is a whiny "Well, it's not fair that everybody doesn't get to work at a company that generous."

Trust me - Lilly, the Whole Foods insurance package is arguable the best in the country. A sick child has absollutely nothing to worry about if he or she has a parent working at Whole Foods.
You're just mad because we're not all serfs for the greater good yet. LIke it or not, AMerica wasn't founded to be a socialist nation, and I for one will fight to keep people like you from deciding how I should spend the money I work for.

Excuse me????
talisman writes: Wednesday, October, 03, 2007 12:43 AM

"Selective giving
This would become a country of selective charity. Look what we've done to the victims of Katrina. Look what is still happening at Walter Reed."

Selective charity? Yeah, let's take a look at what we've done to the victims of Katrina!!!!
Hundreds of Thousands of people donated time, money, food, and even space in their own homes to help out the unfortunate victims of hurricane Katrina.

Average Americans were the ones who really helped the victims of that disaster. I agree that the Government response was a boondoggle. It almost always is, which proves one of the points of this article: get the government out of the game and let the people handle things. We generally do just fine without government help.


angelatc ...
It's great to hear that Whole Foods treats its employee's well. Both my college age kids work at Fossil which also treats its employees pretty well. After three months, they automatically start a 401k for the kids, some of them still in high school. My 18 year old daughter initially complained about the deduction, but when I sat her down and showed her what those few dollars will do over time with compound interest, she changed her tune.

Nail on the head
Health savings accounts are the perfect way to use (gasp!) free market forces to harness competition and lower prices, improve services, and put healthcare choices back where they belong: in the hands of the individual, not a pencil pushing bureaucrat for the government or an HMO.

We buy auto insurance not for oil changes and routine maintenance, but for "catastrophic" expenses. As a result, look at all the oil change and routine maintenance choices we have -- we can do Jiffy Lube for $19.99, or we can take it to the dealer for servicing by a mechanic who probably has more experience and has brand-specific training. The choice is ours. The same concept would work in health care.

I've been using an HSA for over a year now, and I love it. I'm banking money, but I know if I have a catastrophic health expense I'm covered (I don't remember exactly, but I think my deductible for most expenses is $1500). I choose my own doctor, and I am free to shop around for a better price if I wish. It's the free market and individual choice at work.

I don't believe it!
I've seen at least 3or 4 posts saying how good WR is and government health care is and I haven't seen Hal D. foaming at the mouth!LOL!
Actually, the government DOESN'T look for the lowest bidder. They operate on a most favored bidder and then go for the LOWER bidder. Otherwise, you wouldn't have seen the expose about the 150.00 toilet seats and 100.00 ballpean hammers. I can buy good Craftsman hammers for 20.00 each. You also have a problem with only one supplier making the part. There was an unnamed manufacturer here that was 15 million in cost overrides and the government fined them 1 illion and said no more contracts for a number of years but the company was the only one who made the part so they came right back to them six months later. quite a punishment right? they made 14 million for absolutly nothing.

Nail on the head
Health savings accounts are the perfect way to use (gasp!) free market forces to harness competition and lower prices, improve services, and put healthcare choices back where they belong: in the hands of the individual, not a pencil pushing bureaucrat for the government or an HMO.

We buy auto insurance not for oil changes and routine maintenance, but for "catastrophic" expenses. As a result, look at all the oil change and routine maintenance choices we have -- we can do Jiffy Lube for $19.99, or we can take it to the dealer for servicing by a mechanic who probably has more experience and has brand-specific training. The choice is ours. The same concept would work in health care.

I've been using an HSA for over a year now, and I love it. I'm banking money, but I know if I have a catastrophic health expense I'm covered (I don't remember exactly, but I think my deductible for most expenses is $1500). I choose my own doctor, and I am free to shop around for a better price if I wish. It's the free market and individual choice at work.

As to the idea that there's no price competition, that's bunk. There *would* be if individual consumers were shopping around for health care services.

Wow
Doctork has not come here yet advertising his book for the miracle cure to health care. Maybe the system in the US is SO bad he has had to duck up to Canada for some quick treatment.


funnyOLDrepublicans, please tell me ...
when you have ever heard of competition in today's medical market? I'm 48 and in my life, I'd say it just ain't so. And THAT's the problem! The third party payer system we have had with HMO's has relegated competitve pricing to the ash heap of history. Except when it comes to procedures people tyically pay out of their own pockets without the use of insurance dollars.

You want lasik surgery? You have a number of options and can get competitve pricing information BEFORE you decide who will do the job. From filling cavities, to braces, to glasses, to that oh-so-chique cosmetic surgery your sagging 50 year old body just has to have, competitive pricing information is readily available. But as soon as you ask your pediatrician how much those Strep tests are going to cost, you get the same respose: "Don't worry. Your insurance will cover it."

Some competition.

Walter Reed Hoax
I wonder about the stories out of Walter Reed re: our servicemen and women. A local young man who lost a foot in Iraq has just returned home after what his father said was excellent care and that this was the norm for our wounded vets.

EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
"Control Your Own Health Care" by John Stossel.
Health care is the doctor---patient relationship. Individuals can only "control" their health care by full participation in that relationship. And I say to everyone who has commented on this article and to Mr. Stossel that a very foolish thing to do is to bring the dollar bill into that relationship because it quite clearly compromises medical decision making.
HSAs are a mechanism for keeping the insurance industry rich and are a windfall for the banks that manage the accounts via the monthly management fees.
Articles like this one simply add to the camouflage that keeps the cost of health care in the front of the discussion and actual health care as a secondary issue. Why are they written? I suggest as a mechanism to avoid changing the status quo of the health care economic market place. Fine for the well-to-do but of no help to those less fortunate.
Having a system in which people have to weigh whether their current symptoms of some illness are worth spending the money to go see a doctor is absolutely WRONG in my view. The decision to seek medical care may be the most important one. You just don't know. Having the dollar bill as a determinant muddies the decision making. MOST FOOLISH!
R. Garth Kirkwood M.D.
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com

Um, Lilly...
lilly writes: Wednesday, October, 03, 2007 2:15 AM
Comment
"I shop often at WholeFoods and have never seen an employee there who looks older than thirty. Healthcare Savings Accounts might be fine for the young and healthy---but they would be a disaster for older Americans"

Ok, Lilly, a couple of things:

1. I too shop often at WholeFoods and I have seen plenty of employees who were older, occasionally much older than thirty. Maybe you weren't paying attention to that particular factor (how many people go into a store for the reason of observing the age of the employees - most people go to shop), or maybe you're so old that everyone else looks to be thirty or youger (in which case it is faulty perception on your part).

2. Are you saying that it is impossible for elderly people to be responsible? If they are elderly, that means that they had a lifetime of opportunity to save money. Why should the rest of us be forced to cover the expenses of someone who couldn't be bothered with such things as responsibility and personal accountability?


Continuation of my last post
Of course there are the few who encounter disasters that are far beyond their means to pay for, such as cancer or multiple sclerosis or other equally devastating diseases for which there is usually no cure. Well, this may sound harsh, but why waste countless exorbitant sums of money on a patient who cannot be cured? Such spending does no good for the patient, the family involved or for the rest of society who must now pay for a worthless waste of money. If someone has a terminal illness, sure get them the painkillers and other drugs needed to make them as comfortable as possible. But why throw money into the wind on worthless causes? As a society, we need to grow up and realize that we all die, all of us. If I have a terminal illness, I am not going to bankrupt myself, my family, or my community at large in a vain attempt to forestall my fate. I would rather go out with a little dignity and grace, and try to enjoy the time I have left with my family and friends. Besides, I have had grim experiences with family members who died of cancer. We all got to watch them go through chemotherapy, a procedure that did not help them one bit and only ravaged their bodies even more, making their last days even more miserable. Why would I want to go through that? In the end, we all were saddled with the difficult chore of dealing with expensive bills for treatments that did no good and caused more pain and suffering for the patient than would have otherwise happened.

eastlake joe ...
Actually, the enormous costs for goods supplied to the government is due to all the requirements manufacturers must meet. Ever have to read through a Mil-Spec requirement? Some military lawyers worked way too much overtime on most of those documents. I can buy a regular 1n4007 diode for pennies, but as soon as I'm working on government program that requires mil-spec parts, that exact same diode may cost as much as $4 or $5 each! Why? Because many times mil-specs call for each component to be individually tested and rated rather than the 1% to 2% sampling that many producers do for commercial parts.

The company I work for is a sole source supplier on parts for some jet fighters. We still have to justify all our prices before we can get a contract.

skiddles, your psychic
Or is that pysychotic? ;)

6 days in hospital + surgery.....
recently cost a friend of mine $40,000.00. My friend does not have health insurance but did have a small savings put back. His wife went to the business office and offered them 40% of the bill in cash. They took it at lightening speed. Afterward she said that they probably would have settled for even less. Sounds to me like a case of overpricing to start with.

Voice of Reason writes:
* costs start to come down (supply-and-demand at work)
==========================
I think a lot of what you have said makes a lot of sense, but I just don't see this happening. I conceed that there might be a little less demand, but it is also possible based on everything that Stossel promotes that demand will go up.

Take me for example, I have been to the doctor three times in two and a half years for serious nasal infections that did not go away after 3 - 4 weeks. But based on Stossels logic, I could add two annual visits to that number representing a 66% increase in doctors visits.

Additionally, Doctors seem to want to be well paid (my policy is to pay doctors, nurses, and pilots very well) and, have been under the financial hammer for the last ten years or however long. Just because there is a reduction in their underlying cost (associated with insurance claim etc.) doesn't mean that those savings will be passed on to the patient.

My third consideration is that (from what I understand) there is an artificial limit on how many positions are available at med school, thus limiting suppply.

I say all that as food for thought. I would consider your plan successful if health care costs were stagnant for 5 to 10 years.

doctork
Sorry, but as a physician you have a vested interest in avoiding market competition. You lose all credibility for that alone.

Government has no incentive to be efficient. If the government smeddles any more, there won't be any reason for hospitals to construct services that are affordable. That's what happened when insurance took hold - there's no reason to think that it will bet better.

Managed care sucks. Government managed care will suck more than corporate managed care.

I'm old enough to remember when I has to wait 3 months to see OB/GYNs for yeast infections, and the prescrption-only treatment was pretty pricey.

Although the AMA fought it tooth and nail, we now can stop at the drugstore and pick up medicine for a fraction of the cost it used to be, and with no office visit either. It seems the dire predictions of women dying as a result failed to come to fruition. Imagine that.

And by the way, now there's a swab we can use to ascertain that the infection is actually yeast? Strep should be handled the same way. Sell us swab at the pharmacy. It doesn't require an office visit.

The free clinic run by a church in CHicago was featured recently on NPR. Nobody is using it, so they might have to close down.

ANother key factor: build more medical schools, stop restricting the number of MD's that practice through market manipulation, and prices will come down.

re: Frog
You can't kill competition. Provide a market for a service, and competition will emerge. Sure, right now your pediatrician says "charge it to the insurance", but as more people take control of their own health care through vehicles like HSAs, competition will arise. Some pediatrician across town might decide to lower his prices to try to get more business. Doctors might start shopping around to various labs to lower their own prices, which they could either pass on to their customers in the form of lower prices, or keep more profit for themselves, or both.

There used to be a government-mandated telecommunications monopoly in this country -- the government prevented competition. Since breaking up that monopoly, prices have gone down while services and convenience have increased. Competition works. Free markets work. Individual choice works.

PS to Deskjockey: the airlines were actually deregulated during the Carter Administration, not Reagan. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers though.

Skiddles
We all want to be paid well, but market forces keep most of us from earning 1.5 million every year. The medical profession will be the same way.

I have dogs. I take them to a vet with 60's tile on the floor and metal folding chairs in the waiting room. The vaccines cost me $20 per dog. I could take them to the vet up the street, and those same vaccines would cost me $120 per dog. Lots of people take their dogs up the street.

The point is I have a choice. If everybody started coming to my vet, I suspect she would raise her prices to cover a bigger, newer office, and the next-block vet would lower prices to bring the customers back.

Demand will no doubt go up, which should mean that more docotrs enter the market to meet demand. Instead, the AMA is intent on limiting the number of practioneers, and refusing to allow nurses to provide routine services, to keep prices as high as they can.

The government never makes things cheaper. NEVER.

response to Talisman
You are ignorant and all over the place. The war, baby bonds, Katrina and John Stossel's giving have nothing to do with each other.

First, a study was done within the last year showing the giving patterns of US citizens - and it showed that people who identify themselves as Republicans tend to give more than those who identify themselves as Democrats.

Government and private charity has given millions to victims of Katrina. Some of those people have taken the help and rebuilt their lives and some went to strip clubs.

But really, what's wrong with 'selective giving'? Charity shouldn't be forced...like the case of 'government charity'. Its not charity when the government does it.

Obviously you dont believe in the goodness of your fellow Americans or their ability to handle their own affairs. Government is the solution always, right? Please move back to Cuba as soon as possible, commrade.

Stossel is 100% spot on.

re: skiddles
*Everyone* loves to be well paid. However, supply and demand and competition work to lower prices. Always. Even with most people still using traditional HMOs and PPOs, I've seen several doctors' offices opening up on only a cash or credit card basis -- they don't accept insurance at all. These doctors employ fewer people and tend to charge less for an office visit because they don't worry about the insurance paperwork.

Yes, doctors like to be well paid. And the best way to be well paid is to offer a service people want at a price they are willing to pay. That concept doesn't change magically when it comes to health care.

angelatc writes:
The government never makes things cheaper. NEVER.
=====
I hope you did not think I was for govt health care. I am from Australia. I know about govt Health Care.

Been there, the line was way too long.

Frog
Yes, as a welder I have worked with mil-specs and I still say on some things it doesn't come into play. A hammer from craftsman is as good as any hammer that any one else makes. Also you can't tell me that makes up the difference between a 30.00 toilet seat and a 150.00 one. Get off it !

Stossel Forgets
Trust John Stossel to only tell you half the story. Some things he does not mention:

1. The uninsured. He pretends that most of the problem is with people who are already insured, but the uninsured are the real problem since they are often poor and cannot pay emergency room bills; the emergency rooms must raise prices for the insured to cover the loss. YOU ALREADY PAY for the uninsured as it is, but you pay the highest prices for them.

2. He makes a big deal out of catastrophic care, but doesn't note that insurance companies typically only pay a part (though sometimes a large part) of the medical bills. 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and, of those, 75% were insured at the beginning of their illness.

Polls show that most people want some sort of government health care, so it looks like another losing issue for Republicans.

good point FROG
i was going to bring up the Lasiks example of how free markets would work here, but here is another point to ponder:

there is a misconception out there to think about:

you go to the Dr and get treated.
the Dr fills out the paperwork(online forms) and submits for reimbursement. the insuranace denies the claim.
the Dr resubmits with the corrected forms. Denied for unapproved treatment. the Dr tries several times more. the insurance sends a partial payment. the Dr sighs

the Dr now has to hire a staff just to work the insurance claims.
the Dr went into medicine because he cared about people and wanted to help them. he now sees that he can spent no more than 5 minutes with each patient if he wants to make a living. he gets his running shoes on and starts making the lightning fast diagnosis and gets through the day.

think about it: how can a system that has to go through a huge process be efficient? the insurance company does not want to get ripped off and wants to ensure that all of the claims are legit. in fact, the less they pay out, the more they save. the Dr just wants to get paid.

the game is:
the insurance company wants to deny payment
the Dr wants to get maximum payment.
Each has a staff to play this game.
how can this be cheap?

a chiropractor charges $100 if it goes through insurance and only $30 cash payment. why? he says it is the overhead of working with insurance companies.

bottom line: a direct payer system or MSA

re: Borneo
Providing health care to those who truly can't afford it is another issue altogether, but a large number of uninsured people in this country aren't poor. Another large percentage are illegal immigrants. Put ownership of a person's health care into the hands of the individual, and let's reap those benefits. Then we can look at who really needs help.

I would offer that one reason polls show public support for some sort of government health care plan is because they are unhappy with the way things now and mistakenly think that we have a capitalist, free market system currently. Unfortunately, that's not the case, as it is pencil-pushing bureaucrats, either for the government or the government-created HMOs, who are making health care decisions.

Let the market work. It works for cell phones, TV sets, cars, and beer. It can work for health care also. Individuals making decisions for themselves and their families know better than the government.

borneo - facts
the reason people want some kind of gov't involvement is because they do not get the whole story.

gov't care is rationed. ask them if they would like to wait months for an MRI or get on a waiting list to get a knee or hip replacement. tell them that they will be denied if they are too heavy or have other factors (British health care). now ask them if they want gov't to run things.

the users of emergency care must pay for the service or be denied. once the message gets out the costs will drop. it is not fair for the rest. if there is charity to be given, let the hosptials, Drs and charities supply this.
most of these recipients of "free" health care think that they are entitled to it. they are not.

VA care
funnyOLDrepublicans writes: Wednesday, October, 03, 2007 9:42 AM
Universal Care- Works for VETS


"If it is good enough (and it is, I use it) for those who served (UNLIKE MOST OF YOU), it is good enough for ALL.


It figures the right-wing is just trying the same weak "competition" discussion again.


THAT IS HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THIS MESS TO BEGIN WITH. With that exact same LIE."

Hate to burst your bubble funnyOLD, but the care you get at the VA is just a taste of how life would be like with Hillarycare. I will agree that the care you receive at the VA is excellent. Once you are able to get it. Take my wife as an example, she is a vet (as am I BTW) as of today she has been waiting 4 months for a chance to see the orthopedic surgeon. She needs a fairly routine procedure to fix a tear in her hip. Thats called "health care rationing". Thats what happens in socialized medicine. The only reason the VA is even THAT quick (as compared to Canadian health care for example) is because the VA is ONLY for vets and dependents. Imagine how long the wait would be if EVERYBODY could use the VA system!

?
"gov't care is rationed."

Private care is rationed to those who can afford it.

"the users of emergency care must pay for the service or be denied."

That is completely unethical.


Elderly
It's one thing that small costs are being paid for by insurance, but it's another that big cost are as well, and I think it's the big costs that really drive up prices. When my grandfather was old and dying, he racked up probably more than $100k trying to sustain his life, and I just thought my God let the poor man die. We get old and die; that's life. Yet when it comes time, because of insurance and the fact the they don't directy pay for the costs, the elderly end up soaking up massive resources and cost for healthcare.

There is so much inefficiency and misuse. And you can't even escape it by bypassing insurance and paying yourself, because hospitals just pass on the costs they are not getting paid for to those who are paying.

Insurance should be much more flexible and give you a hold range of options and things you want covered and things you don't. Maybe we could save some premium money if could decline triple bypass surgery after we are 80 years old and such.

Borneo
"the users of emergency care must pay for the service or be denied."

That is completely unethical.
===================
So if a person does not want to pay for food it is unethical for a store/restaurant to deny giving the food away for free.

Nothing prevents the food from being given away for free, or someone else paying for the food as an act of charity.

Why do you insist that a doctor/ nurse/ hospital/ taxpayer MUST provide service for free? My local hospital is run by Catholics, and I am sure that they would provide service to the needy if they were not required by law to do so.

re: Borneo
quote: "Private care is rationed to those who can afford it."


So let me clarify: are you saying that because you believe under a private, free market, individual choice health care system *some* people get "ration[ed]" care, that the solution to this is to ration care for everyone? Also, how many people in this country are not getting health care because of cost? Don't quote the uninsured number, because that is misleading.

I say let's have a system founded on principles of sound, free market capitalism, that is based on individual choice, and then let's see who needs help. We can then determine the best way to help those in need, remembering too that we have Medicaid already in place.

spacntime7 writes:
Your grandfathers situation will become more typical as medicine can keep the body alive well beyond the failure of the brain. At that point someone else needs to determine how much effort to expend to sustain the body.

I have a grandfather who has had alzheimers for years and does not even recognize his own family. I love him but I hope I don't end up in his position.

I have a living will that will hopefully help but I am not convinced that it would be effective if one of my (one day) adult children did not want to pull the plug.

We love our HSA!
I wish more people knew about HSAs and were willing to give it a try. We are a family of four with 2 small children. Our yearly visits, well-child appointments and physicals are 100% covered.
The HSA cut our insurance costs in half and we have an actual savings account with our money in it for health spending. You can not participate in the HSA without the High-Deductible Insurance so you are covered in the event of a major health issue. Plus, our deductible is a family deductible instead of an individual one that you find with most traditional insurance.
Our HSA is still run by an insurance company so we get the negotiated rates for doctor visits and prescriptions.
It disgusts me that this relatively new option is not even shared with most people as a healthcare option. Check it out for yourself.

One more point
There seems to be confusion between HSA (Health Savings Accounts) and FSA (Flexible Spending Accounts)

These are two totally different things. FSA is a "use it or lose it" program for out of pocket health costs, such as eye glasses, prescriptions, etc.

HSA is not "use it or lose it." Your money is yours to keep to use for any health expense...doctor visits, prescriptions and those things go toward your deductible.

You can not have an FSA if you take the HSA/High Deductible Healthcare plan.

Theory Over Reality
Stossel's gone overboard this time. The corporatist mantra about Health Savings Accounts is just another stealth approach so businesses can eliminate one of the few benfits remaining to employees. Tell ya what, John, let's take this mantra to the full extreme. HSA's aren't enough. Let's REALLY control health costs. Let's repeat the ancient Spartan's policy of putting less than perfect babies out on the rocks so the buzzards can feed on them. Let's euthanize every adult whose genetic makeup reveals a propensity toward diseases like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, et al. In fact, let's add the cherry on top of the whipped creme - let's make a law that anyone who isn't a blonde, blue-eyed perfect physical specimen be thrown out of the country. That will definitely cut health costs. Of course, it's also a return of an ideology my father and ten million other Americans fought in the WWII military to eradicate from the earth - but, hey, we need to control those health costs. You people make me sick.

By the way
From what I understand about HSAs, and I am for HSA's, the catastrophic insurance still negotiates with the doctor the cost of the service. I will conceed that this is a blanket statement and that some moy not, but even if they don't they will come under increasing preasure to do so as you get into new treatments etc.
You may be able to negotiate a doctors visit but in areas where there is limited competition for one reason or another, there has to be a max cost for a specified service. Insurance companies are not going to let you negotiate big ticket expenses, and once you have spent your deductable you are in no different situation that regular insureance at least from the insurer's perspective.

eastlake joe ...
I didn't mean to imply that mil-specs were the sole cause for the outrageously high prices that are charged to the military. While I think it accounts for the lions share of the higher price, another problem is the accepted higer prices by military personnel for a quid pro quo. A very large percentage of ex-military personnel work for, surprise, company's that have military contracts. I know, I worked with many of them in my Hughes Aircraft days.

Oh BTW, get off what?

My point is
that while moving a bulk of people to HSA/catastropic insurance is a great thing, there are still a ton of other conditions that need to be rectified before the system will work effeciently.

Just because a b**b job is coming down in price does not mean it will all work that way. That end of plastic surgery is really not comparable to say tripple bypass surgery. Risks are different, recovery times are different, demand is different.

Plus the negotiation dynamic is totally different. Instead of being at a disadvantage in the negotiation, the doctor has a great advantage when negotiating one on one for service. Here is why. Once people choose a doctor, they don't usually price shop every service.

If I was a doctor I could offer $4 doctors visits, but charge for each perscription written or additional test provided. Offer services that are convenient but more expensive, because I know that you aren't going to take your sick kid home and start shopping around for what he needs when I have the same service in house, for an inflated price.

It's always about...
Accountability and Responsibility.

You are accountable for you action/inaction to have what you need in life to support yourself and your children.

When you delegate that to someone else(government in this case) you are not being response-able for the life you've created - your own and your child's.

Spending other people's money will never encourage understanding for the value of a dollar - it's only when the money is your own and you've earned it.

I want my freedom of choice in all areas of my life. I want the government to get out of the way.

Health Care, Logic, and Economics
To the true Liberals jlohman, lilly, Talisman:
If you care about the poor, WHY in the heck would you centralize Health Care? This sets up a class based system, in which the poor will lose and you liberals will WIN. Please look at historical examples of centralized planning:i.e. Soviet Union, SOME African Countries, etc. It is not an effiecient model of managing scarcity. The current health care model is not working because the incentives are not involved for ALL parties. Most of the money of the government centralized plan will NEVER EVER get to the poor that really need the services. It will go to some Government worker who has NO incentive to provide excellent service.Why? It is a monopoly. You need competition to keep prices low.
Liberals: Please use logical arguments and study economics. I really could care less about YOUR personal experiences towards health care. Lilly please tell us that you did a full blown research on Whole Foods employees that participate in the company's Health Care plan. Because ONE or SOME Whole Foods stores have young employees, does not mean that ALL the employes are young and healthy and insurable. That violates the rule of composition. Insurance is based on several principles some are the following: Management of Risk, Law of Large Numbers, and Law of Averages. With the current system, the consumer is NOT assuming most of the risk, the employers and the Gov't are assuming most of the risk, which eventually is passed to the taxpayer. Free Market system makes sense, becuase the risk is spread and the profit motive is in place. The net result: low prices. The Free Market system works, and the poor will benefit. Here is the REAL FEAR OF LIBERALS:You liberals think that the poor will leave the plantation if they had FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Then you will not have any blacks, poor or other minorites to lie, manipulate, and trick into voting for your tired ideas.

re: skiddles
quote: "Once people choose a doctor, they don't usually price shop every service."

That's because they have no incentive to do so when someone else is footing the bill. When people get to keep the money that they aren't spending on healthcare, as in an HSA, then they can choose to shop around for the best price, or choose to stay with a doctor they trust. Either way, the competition is there, the market is at work, and the individual chooses for himself what is best rather than a faceless insurance desk worker or government bureaucrat.

John Galt writes:
and the individual chooses for himself what is best rather than a faceless insurance desk worker or government bureaucrat.
========================
I have never had this happen with traditional insurance HMO or PPO.

Based on the cost of new diagnostic equipment, it is hard for me to believe that I would NOT be relying on the catastrophic insurance each year. I am not arguing against HSA etc, but these days the cost of diagnosis is going to eat up that deductable with one visit a year.

The original point of my post was to point out human nature. If you are in need of a heart surgen, you are probably not going to call around too much because it is pretty much an emergency. Also, you are probably going to be relying on your insurance anyway. Financial considerations are rarely the primary concern when an emergency happens.

And how much do you think a surgen is really going to negotiate with you. He knows what his competitors are charging, they talk about it at the country club. And what if he charges you one rate and someone else another? Is that discrimination? Maybe, maybe not, but do you think an attorney will try to prove that the doctor discriminated based on race, religion, gender hair color.

No matter how much you want it too be, health care services is never going to be a pure free market.

talisman
you still talking about NO? 250 thousand each and still counting. no tears here.

Hunter 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Roberta Roberta
Michael what did you do with that BIGMAC?

JG
I don't think it is enough to be "for HSAs". I think a VERY well though out plan is needed to get us there. Voice of Reason's 6:29 AM post is great because it puts together a logical plan to get to an end state that many here want to see. I am sure that VOR can think of many more points that are important as well.

I think it is fun to see socialist solutions shot down with logic, but if we want change, the underlying text here needs to generate specific plans that will work for all, not just those who are extremely disciplined or lucky.

skiddles
"Why do you insist that a doctor/ nurse/ hospital/ taxpayer MUST provide service for free?"

Your food analogy is idiotic. We are talking about EMERGENCY medical care. If you show up at a hospital with an emergency you get treated. You don't have to hunt down charity--assuming it's even available nearby.

re: skiddles
It's still a free market under an HSA with a catastrophic coverage, we're just letting the insurance companies worry about big-ticket items instead of every doctor's visit. Likewise with auto insurance: I have a fairly high deductible, so if I have an expensive accident, I let the insurance company handle the details of repair. However, I shop around for oil changes, maintenance and repair services, etc.

Obviously, if I'm in need of urgent surgery, I'm not going to take the time to go shopping around for surgeons myself -- that's expertise that I'm paying the insurance company for. That's commerce and still a free market transaction.

I personally think that we need to re-do the tax code so that individuals own their own healthcare rather than having to rely on an employer to do so. At that point, an individual could decide for himself and his family what kind of plan is best, and the real choices would be out there. Prefer an HMO or PPO? Fine, but here's the cost compared with an HSA/high-deductible plan. Start by shifting the tax deduction from businesses to individuals and giving us our choices. Then unleash market forces and watch the results -- competition works.

Borneo
Emergency Rooms treat a lot more than emergencies. Anyone who is uninsured uses the ER for routine health care.

Some here might say check for insurance before treatment of an accident victim but I think most believe that an accident victim should treated first. But don't go to the ER and EXPECT to get treated for flu for free just because you don't have insurance.

The analogy to food is not as idiotic as you think. It is not perfect, but it is not far off.

Other People's Money
http://www.healthcaresoundoff.com has already commented on the other people's money syndrome. None of us who are insured think we are spending our own money so we don't pay attention to the cost of healthcare services and probably don't pay attention to our health either. http://www.healthcaresoundoff.com offered a low cost plan for the government and the taxpayer that (Healthcare Access Card) helps finance first dollar costs and allows insurers to raise deductibles and cover catastrophic events for a lower premium. We have the ability to address our issues without much government involvement other than a guarantee program similar to home mortgages and student loans. Let's get behind the Healthcare Soundoff idea.

Republicans can be scumbags!!!

I have recently read online that president Bush has vetoed a children’s healthcare bill that would have extended health insurance to low income children without health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health

George Bush is an aristocratic, spoiled idiotic scumbag! I despise this man more than any other person ever to hold office in my life. Denying healthcare to poor children is the lowest of low. He deemed the program “too expensive". All while we plunder billions of dollars into a war that has been based on lies and distortions. What a loser

JG
I agree that the current employer based model is a little screwy, but it could be modified to be more useful. I don't think it needs to be eliminated. I think that employers could negotiate the cost of a policy for their employees to take advantage of.

I have heard of employers that have agreements with various car dealers to extend favourable price discounts to employees. If the employee leaves the company after using the employee discount there is no penalty paid.

There is no reason why health insurance could not be the same. What if an employer wanted to contribute some money to the HSA of the employee. Is that wrong? Should that be allowed or not. What if as an employee of ABC Corp you could buy a 20 year fixed premium policy that was not dependent on continued employment with ABC Corp, for a discount over a self negotiated policy? Why is that wrong?

Anthony Thomas
About one day in a month you contribute something that is cogent and logical to the topic of converation.

Today is not one of those days.

Want Money for Healthcare?
One thing that we probably all agree on is government waste.

The President is complaining about $7 billion dollars being a budget buster.

One thing that drives me absolutely crazy about the Republicans is the constant mantra of how we need to downsize big government because it can't do the job. In concept, no one disagrees with that idea. In practicality it appears that the Republican idea of proving this concept is simply to INSURE that big government doesn't work, not by trying to make it do more with less.

This is a great example.

The American Conservative, not your MSM liberal publication, wrote an article about missing and corrupt money in Iraq. Rough numbers for money that can't be accounted for? $20 MILLION. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

The President needs $7. Have him and the Republicans account for some of this missing money and they get a 13 million dollar surplus.

Anthony T.
Talk to your dems about that. They were the ones who added the age limit of 26 to it. Now you tell me why I should pay for an able bodied 26 year (or any age between 17 and 26) old person to have insurance? I worked dam hard to get mine when I was that old as I was in the service at the time.

Want Money for Healthcare?
One thing that we probably all agree on is government waste.

The President is complaining about $7 billion dollars being a budget buster.

One thing that drives me absolutely crazy about the Republicans is the constant mantra of how we need to downsize big government because it can't do the job. In concept, no one disagrees with that idea. In practicality it appears that the Republican idea of proving this concept is simply to INSURE that big government doesn't work, not by trying to make it do more with less.

This is a great example.

The American Conservative, not your MSM liberal publication, wrote an article about missing and corrupt money in Iraq. Rough numbers for money that can't be accounted for? $20 MILLION. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

The President needs $7. Have him and the Republicans account for some of this missing money and they get a 13 million dollar surplus.

re: Anthony Thomas & skiddles
First, to Anthony Thomas and "the children". Note that that bill was not about poor children, but rather extended the coverage up to people well into the middle class. Sorry, it is not my responsibility to be forced to pay for health insurance for someone else's children, especially when the parents can afford it themselves. Get off the talking points and deal in facts.

To skiddles: why should the employer retain the tax advantage and therefore be the master over my health care choices? Why should where I work have anything to do with my health care choices? Why not allow individual choice instead.

Some historical context: the only reason employers are the chief health care providers today is because of wage and price restrictions implemented by FDR during WW2. He banned giving raises, so companies began offering more "French benefits" (if you've seen that old commercial haha) like health insurance. It makes much more sense to have individuals choosing for themselves.

Frog
What I meant was get off the story that mil-specs cause it. On critical parts, I'll agree that it is important, but on non-critical parts such as tools, Plumbing parts, brooms, and other things like that it is not a factor. I mean, come on, mil-specs on a basic toilet seat? Thats rediculous.

John Galt
Why are you guys so resistant to helping people in need. I would not qualify for this insurance plan either. I currently pay 300 a month in private health insurance cost and would be subject to the same taxes as you. But I still recognize that they’re people less fortunate than I who cannot afford this and who need care. Who am I to deny them? Taxes taxes taxes, I know, we have to pay them and nobody likes it. But sometimes you just have to do what's fair and just and stop thinking about yourself. Not all who benefited would be "26 years old".
You guys got to get over yourselves..

Unaccountable Republicans
According to "The American Conservative". There's at least $20 billion that has gone into Iraq that can't be accounted for. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

CBS puts the number at $50 billion, but what's a few dollars here or there.

That should more than cover the $7 billion needed for this program, plus a lot more.

Maybe if the President looked under his desk he'd find this money next to his WMDs.

Socialism
"Free" health care, food stamps, rent control and HUD, welfare, Hillary' $5,000 per newborn.....why would anyone want to work

JG
why should the employer retain the tax advantage and therefore be the master over my health care choices?
-------
How about this, there should be no tax ADVANTAGE to the employer other than they can write off contributions to HSA or Insurace like wages and salaries paid. I grant that the current system employers could be seen as masters over healthcare choices but they do pay a majority of the expense in a majority of cases.

-------
Why should where I work have anything to do with my health care choices?
---------
Even if the employer pays nothing to cover health insurance / HSA, there is no reason why the employer can't negotiate a more favourable policy if you want to take advantage of it.

I have looked at catastrophic coverage available to individuals and they just don't stack up to what people are talking about available through employers. It seems that insurers are willing to provide more for less when there is the potential to reach a larger client base.

---------
Why not allow individual choice instead.
---------
I am not proposing eliminating individual choice. In fact I think that it makes more sense to regulate insurance at the federal level so that there are fewer barriers to entry into any given market. If you have many choices, the cost will come down.

Anthony Thomas
is just mad cos now he ain't covered for sure!

Hunter 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Harry said:
Roberta Roberta loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me! YAAAAAA HE REALLY LOVES ME!

re: Anthony Thomas
How many people should I be forced to provide free health insurance for? First you denigrate Bush for vetoing a bill that would provide insurance to "low income children without health insurance." Then when we point out that the bill provided insurance to more than just "low income children", you decide to change the debate. The fact is that there is already Medicaid for poor people, and there is already S-CHIP for children above the Medicaid line, and states have the opportunity to provide more health care if they see fit.

What you're advocating is that I should be required to work to ensure that someone else can get something for free. Who are you to call me out for not wanting my money, that I work for, confiscated from me and given to someone else? Especially by a government that is full of fraud, inefficiency, waste, and abuse? That makes me a "scumbag"?

Throughout this thread I've advocated a better system than we have now for the administration of health care. Implement that and see what happens, then we can talk about how to help people "in need". Another expanded, expensive, wasteful, inefficient government program is not what we need.

re: skiddles
The reason things are cheaper through employers right now is that *they* get the tax incentives -- they write off the amount they provide in benefits. I advocate giving that tax advantage instead to individuals, then it doesn't matter whether you work for an employer that offers benefits, or work on a contract basis (without benefits), or own your own business, or whatever.

I would further allow professional organizations, e.g. architecture associations, engineering associations, chambers of commerce, etc., to form pools and offer group rates on insurance. This is currently against the law and artificially inflates the number of uninsured.

Tax incentives give the power to the employers. That means the power is NOT with the individual.

Anthony Thomas
Why don't you get on board and purchase an appropriate and individualized HSA. With the savings from your current overpriced 'Health Insurance' which you are paying for you could donate those savings to a NGO that will more cost effectively provide care to 'people less fortunate.' See that gives you choice. This way there is no 'political currency exploited by Socialist Wolves in Progressive Sheeps Clothing (aka Hillary Clinton) to pull at the emotional heart-strings of the ever well meaning do gooders like you and your Lib friends.

Anthony, are you so morally bankrupt that you need the government to tell you what you need to do for 'the less fortunate?' Man-up and take personal responsibility for your actions. Take good care of yourself and avoid the unnecessary medical expenses that HSA opponents ignorantly raise as an objection. Use the savings for whatever you believe will "help" the most unfortunate in a way you determine. In each case you will take personal responsibility and have a greater personal interest in the outcome. Then, and only then, might we all begin to reverse the overwhelming inertia that is grinding our once great nation into the pasteurized society it is becoming. We are a great country because of 'America's Exceptionalism.' It starts with personal responsibility and accountability. Stop trying to pass it on to THE ALL KNOWING AND POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.

Anthony Thomas
Why don't you get on board and purchase an appropriate and individualized HSA. With the savings from your current overpriced 'Health Insurance' which you are paying for you could donate those savings to a NGO that will more cost effectively provide care to 'people less fortunate.' See that gives you choice. This way there is no 'political currency exploited by Socialist Wolves in Progressive Sheeps Clothing (aka Hillary Clinton) to pull at the emotional heart-strings of the ever well meaning do gooders like you and your Lib friends.

Anthony, are you so morally bankrupt that you need the government to tell you what you need to do for 'the less fortunate?' Man-up and take personal responsibility for your actions. Take good care of yourself and avoid the unnecessary medical expenses that HSA opponents ignorantly raise as an objection. Use the savings for whatever you believe will "help" the most unfortunate in a way you determine. In each case you will take personal responsibility and have a greater personal interest in the outcome. Then, and only then, might we all begin to reverse the overwhelming inertia that is grinding our once great nation into the pasteurized society it is becoming. We are a great country because of 'America's Exceptionalism.' It starts with personal responsibility and accountability. Stop trying to pass it on to THE ALL KNOWING AND POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.

The tax incentive
as I understand it is that the premiums on insurance are only pruchased on a before tax basis when purchased through an employer. You could change this simply by giving a tax credit for all health insurance premiumn. Not that I believe that this is the right way to approach the problem.

The only reason that employers care so much about health insurance is that they usually pick up a majority of the cost and costs are skyrocketing. Companies would not care so much if there was marginal inflation of insurance costs.

Otherwise, I concur with you comment on professional organizations. Sort of like a Credit Union for health insurance.

JG
Thanks for the dialogue. You have helped me to craft and refine some of my understanding of this topic.

With this medium it is sometimes difficult to distinguish someone who wants to get the last word in from someone who wants to refine ideas. I'll let you get the last word in today if you want it.

Cheers

I am curious
if any of you know--why Medicare people can't have HSA and choose a different ratio of payment. I believe it's 80/20 now?

I am a year and a half past the time I could have retired with full social security--I had planned to never take it but unfortunately, I am slowly deteroriating instead of all at once. The RNC should use Stossel and Norquist for ads to keep us old folks off social security and medical care. It is gagging me that I will be dependent on many of you. John Stossel has this great whiney voice that sure works for me.

Dona261
Medicare is a government mandated entitlement program which takes away the choice of healthcare coverage from the patient. As a consequence, those of/over the age of 65 receive medicare benefits at an 80/20 distribution. As a beneficiary, you then have the opportunity to shop for the best coverage for your 20% uncovered portion. As a consequence of these non-means tested, mandatory, non-pliable government entitlements, Medicaire is estimated to be underfunded in the TRILLIONS of dollars with the ever advancing retirement of baby boomers.
So, now at least, your asking why don't I have some choices in this matter. In the present construct, you have very limited options because some well meaning folks were going to take care of the unfortunate old folks when they became too feable to care for themselves (aka President Johnson). Hence we have the current Medicaire disaster. Yet, somehow and in someway, that there are people who still believe that an obligatory government mandated and managed health care system is a 'reasonable' alternative is absolutely mind boggling. Everyone should be listening to DONA261 now about a system s/he is stuck with due to the best intentions of those two generations before. Is this the devastatingly stupid legacy you wish your grandchildren to remember you for?

Doc Tony
But do you know why people who fall under medicare can't also have tax deductable health savings account. I have a stringent "Do not Treat" "DNR" medical power of attorney and living will but if I could save 300 to 400 dollars a month that is tax deductable, that would be nice and hopefully cover last illness and death.

A.T.
Anthony Thomas writes: Wednesday, October, 03, 2007 3:14 PM
John Galt
Why are you guys so resistant to helping people in need...Who am I to deny them?...
You guys got to get over yourselves...

Anthony:

There has been some great and thoughful discussion here, but you have totally missed it. If you were to go back and read the forum from the beginning, you would see that your questions were answered. Why do you insist that helping people in need is defined by having money withheld from your paycheck and funneled through the government? Why do you measure compassion by how much of other people's money you're willing to confiscate and redistribute? Why do you want the State to take your money and replace you as the provider and decision maker for yourself and your family? And why are people who think differently from you scumbags?

Dona261
I'm not entirely sure that you cannot have a HSA to cover your 20% deductible. The question is Why would you? The benefit of the HSA is the low cost high deductible catastrophic coverage. This is what your Part A/B of medicare presumably already covers. Granted there are certain limits to the total coverage, but these are not commonly exceeded. The deductible portion that you have some choice about does not seem well suited to the type of HSA accounts that would replace the current employer based private health insurance. In other words, the secondary insurance you have in conjuction with your medicare benefits is to cover the 'unpaid deductible' that Medicare left. You could do that with a check, cash, goats and chickens or the latest AARP Platinum plan. There are no personal or tax savings options as a result.

The bottom line is that the choice was taken away from you by the do-gooders of the 1960's. Even if I wanted to opt out of medicaire when I am 65 (I'm 41 now) I can't. You only have one year until you are manditorily enrolled in what will soon become an unfunded entitlement liability. Good luck. I just hope this country isn't foolish enough to give the government another mandatory program to screw up.

Broken Health Care System
Its going to take whole lot more than competition to fix our health care system. We have put into place an insane system. Take for instance the poor felllow in our state that could not afford health insurance not the $14.00 a day to purchase siezure medication. The state system turned him down so he went without his medicine and had a seizure. A big one that caused brain damage. He then was admitted to a hospital and then on to long term care. The total cost of his care was over 1 million dollars.
Then there are the uninsured that must let their illnesses go untreated becuase they can't afford a doctors visit. Their illness reaches a crises, and they go to the emergency room. That is the most expensive care of all and of course they can't afford it. There is also the cost of the extra treament that is needed because it was neglected so long.
Then there is the issues of liability insurance. Lawsuits are a way of life in America. Doctors have to pay a fortune for liability insurance to protect themselves if they should make a mistake. they are human they will make mistakes. But do we need to award 10 million dollars for one mistake.
then there is the VERY expensive treatment for cancer and other serious illnesses. We can extend the life of the patients for a few years but at a huge cost.
There is NO way competition is going to solve these problems. There is no way we can ever going to reduce the cost of health care until
some or all of these issues are addressed.

let me restate
that last sentence - And why do you label people as scumbags just because they have a different take on the issue?

John Galt

I've always wondered how it became my employer's responsibility to provide for my health care. Thanks for the history lesson.

I mean, I still don't understand it, but at least I know when the idea became conventional wisdom.

I'm reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes right now. So many things come back to FDR...

chicaree
Your gross oversimplification of the situation is not surprising or uncommon. All throughout you scenario you left out one small issue: personal responsibility and accountability.

Someone too poor to afford health care has options if they choose to exercise them. There are existing government and NGO's that provide health care. There are free clinics, pharmaceutical company discounts and physicians willing to see the uninsured as long as they make some effort to pay for the service. I, as well as countless others, see patients for $5 and give countless free samples from my office. It doesn't even cover my cost, but it demonstrates the patient has accepted personal responsibility for his disease process.

Your 'helpless victim' is a victim of his own, admittedly bad, choices. Waiting to go to the ER is a choice. Not taking your medication is a choice. There are innumerable other options beside the ER. But those aren't always as convenient or accessible. That's what people expect. There are so many other options through the free market with limited governmental and faith based/NGO support to improve the system. But it will all start with personal responsibility. If the Socialists continue to preach "it's not your fault, it's not your problem, let me take care of it for you for free" and people believe this tripe, we are all in for a lot of pain.


John Stossel
I was wondering when you were going to get down to this basic economic principle.

What took you so long?

Hope
I hope Bush continues to veto this kind of stuff.

Quite frankly it is about time. Now we need to do our part and boot out the RINO's that created it in the first place.

Just exactly how many more welfare programs do we need and at what point should we just dump the democratic republic and call ourselves socialist?

Insurance,HSA etc
As a business owner I can deduct as a business expense 50% of my health insurance. Yes, it is a high deductable, HSA qualified policy. If I hire someone or incorporate and hire myself via the company. I can deduct 100% of the cost of the insurance as "Benefits". I love the legal / tax industry.

for Wolfgang - No one is talking about leaving "defective" babys out to be eaten by vultures - We are talking taking control of some of the costs of health care. Think about it, if you go to an "all you can eat" buffet are you going to eat more than if you ordered off the menu. It is human nature to take advantage of the "deal".




HSA's Yes
The biggest challenge we face today with HSAs is inertia. Many with employer sponsored health plans don't understand them and when given a competitive alternative like an HSA qualified plan, they can't do the math. Traditional plan designs, like HMOs and PPOs, have conditioned people to understand their healthplans in terms of co-pays and complicated co-insurance arrangements. So when the question is asked, what is your exposure in you health insurance plan? It can't be answered. But when you look at an HSA style plan, due to government parameters, plan designs are more transparent, making the calculation easier to make. So the question becomes...how much exposure do I want and what am I willing to pay for it. It is the insurance business, and we are buying a safety net that should be designed to mitigate financial calamity, not pay for everything.

Recent changes in funding parameters make these plans more attractive, specifically for people in higher tax brackets. If you have a high effective tax rate and your employer does not offer a lower deductible qualified plan, they should. Do the research on the funding changes implemented last December at IRS.gov.

Lolo1
The veto worked right the way the libs wanteed it to. They wanted themselves to look so humanitarian and then added people to age 26 so they could assure themselves that Bush would veto and make the republicans look bad. It's the same thing they did with the troop funding bill, only they loaded that up with so much pork that they knew Bush would have to veto it. They actually don't give a dam about the troops!

To Talisman, Borneo, and others..
..who have a problem with Stossel's article.

I am certain you miss the entire point.

Let me stipulate with you, Talisman. Okay, maybe I don't give enough to charity. My tax dollars force me to be generous, but perhaps you don't believe that's good enough. Perhaps I don't care as much as you do. That's fine.

It's also fine that I don't! It's my RIGHT as a human being not to be robbed because you feel bad that so many go uninsured, so many go hungry, and so many go uneducated in this country and around the world. What gives you that right to rob me and every other American, regardless of how they spend their money?

We're talking about FREEDOM here, Borneo. The freedom to live and work and keep what we earn. Without economic liberty, political liberty becomes a sick joke. Economic liberty provides people the POWER to build our lives and control our destinies as we see fit. Freedom is Power, the power to manage your own life without Big Brother government to do it for you. All power requires responsibility, and failure to use that power responsibly must come at a consequence that is felt and measured. That is how we learn from our mistakes.

The more you rob people, the harder it is for people to bounce back from failures. The good news is that poverty is not a permanent condition, and Americans, especially those who adhere to faith in God in their lives, are the most generous people on the face of this earth.


Freedom
Forcing people to pay for the health care of others is immoral; it is theft. It is an abrogation of basic fundamental liberty that is crucial to the American dream - private property. If a burglar entered your home, and only wanted to take the silverware, would you let him? No, because by doing so you've ceded your entire right to your private property. He asks for the silverware today, and tomorrow he asks for your lamps. There's nothing you can do on principle to stop him, because if you allow him to take only one or a few items that he hasn't earned, why can't he come back and take more? Why not all of it at once? This is why Socialism, in any form, is wrong, immoral, and unethical. It comes creeping in increments, acting benign and benevolent, taking only a little for the good of someone else at first, offering little to nothing to you that you couldn't provide in return.


Wayfinder
Nice essay on the costs of freedom. Wasted effort, though. Folks like Lilly see only the affluence freedom creates for most and the misery it foists on the losers. It only makes sense to Lilly that those who have succeeded financially should be forced to support the failures. To Lilly, need itself is reason for reward. It does not bother her that this destroys motivation and self-reliance, she sees these as lower priority than equality of outcome. Lilly and Talisman see us as being mean-spirited because we believe in reality of outcome. She thinks because i am against affirmative action i am a racist. It does not occur to her i believe in reward of merit, no matter its race. Because i am against welfare for those able to work, she thinks i would stand by and smile as a baby starved. There is nothing wrong with her heart, but her head is just as soft.

Savage99
You're right. And it goes deeper than this. These people do not care about the uninsured, the poor, hungry and thirsty masses. What they care about more than that is being PERCEIVED as though they care. By declaring that they care, by telling everyone that they are tolerant, they are only feeding their own ego. They do not have to lift a finger to do anything to allieviate another's suffering, because it is the perception that matters to them. And to achieve that perception, they need comparison; they need a villain to create the perception of how good they are.

Their political leaders feed on this. Their argument is quite intolerant - that if you do not submit to their solutions of Socialism, then you must be in favor of human misery and suffering. You must be in favor of keeping people poor and uneducated. Of course, this is patently ludicrous, but it's all about marketing the idea. It is a mentality that only cares about the vain aspect, the intention, rather than the reality.

They do not want to discuss the problem. All they care about is feeling "better" than other people. They are willing to sacrifice basic fundamental freedom, no matter the immorality, just so they can say to others that they care.

Pro-Birth or Pro-Life?

Sadie Fields from the Georgia Christian Alliance has been consistently out spoken about the rights of unborn children. Sadie has made it clear that pro-choice Americans are supporting a parent’s the right to murder a child.

Yet when it comes to the welfare of those children fortunate enough to be born, Sadie is willfully blind to how denial of needed healthcare could result in death for the child or the mother. How can she be so outspoken about a child’s right to be born, yet so quiet about a child’s right to life-saving healthcare?

I am shocked that Sadie rejects proposals like those from Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton that require everyone to buy health insurance (similar to the requirement to buy car insurance). Why isn’t Sadie screaming for healthcare solutions that make sure every child is protected and parents are held responsible!

Instead, Sadie fights for unborn children, but then shamefully quits the fight after birth-which accounts for only 4% of childhood.

The Truth about Healthcare

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/pro-birth-or-pro-life




Wake Up and do your homework
Healthcare is expensive and the system is broken. But why is it broken? Is it the insurance carriers? Is it the hospitals that reduce competition through consolodation? Is it the government programs that force service providers to shift costs to the rest of the insured pools? Is it foolish government mandates? Is it the insured inability to understand how their insurance program works, so when the gov't introduces one of the greatest tax breaks in the history of the country everyone shouts it down?

Or does everone have a hand in this.

If you do some research...gov't sponsored national healthcare isn't the solution. Read... understand the way the government sponsored programs control costs is by rationing care. Care rationed to the elderly, high risk infants and the poor.

By the way the VA benefit program has a healthcare program but many people choose to take benefits from their employer. Ask yourself why.

Maybe we should be analyzing why real wages haven't risen across all socio-economic classes in the last 27 years. That might be part of the problem also.

We have the most advanced medicine in the free world, it is expensive. But scrapping the system 90% of the country uses will definitely not make it better.



More information
According to the insurance industry.

33% of people in employer sponsored healthcare do not spend any money on an annual basis. (other than their premium)

Another 40% spend less then $500 a year on healthcare.

So for most of us that have access to a standard $500 deductible healthplan with an office visit co-pay and a drug card, we are overinsured. We are overinsured and paying alot for the right to have the benefits.

Being overinsured it not necessarily a bad thing. But considering how the cost of these have grown and the exposure in the plans increased(increased co-insurance and co-pays) the value to have these type of plans is reduced.




More information
According to the insurance industry.

33% of people in employer sponsored healthcare do not spend any money on an annual basis. (other than their premium)

Another 40% spend less then $500 a year on healthcare.

So for most of us that have access to a standard $500 deductible healthplan with an office visit co-pay and a drug card, we are overinsured. We are overinsured and paying alot for the right to have the benefits.

Being overinsured it not necessarily a bad thing. But considering how the cost of these have grown and the exposure in the plans increased(increased co-insurance and co-pays) the value to have these type of plans is reduced.



Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.