Text 10824, 73 rader
Skriven 2009-04-01 04:40:54 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 10813 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
Ärende: Why so quiet?
=====================
Replying to a message of Bob Klahn to Richard Webb:

 BA>>> Insurance is not about anything other than assigning a risk to

 BK>  Actually, sharing the risk. All can bear part of the burden
 BK>  since none know when they will need it.

 BA>>> someone else. That's why health insurors don't (want to) cover
 BA>>> pre-existing conditions; because the risk is 100% and not the number

 BK>  Actually, the only reason they don't want to cover it is the
 BK>  only reason they don't want to cover anything, it will cost them 
 BK> money.

Actually, Bob, the reason is that they *will* have to pay, not that they
*might*
have to pay.  That is the difference.  Insurance is *not* welfare.

 BA>>> calculated by the actuaries. It's also why you can't get a new auto
 BA>>> insurance policy to cover the accident you had yesterday, or a new
 BA>>> homeowner's policy for your house that burned down last week.

 BK>  Or a new homeowners policy on a home in great shape, in a
 BK>  neighborhood they don't want to deal in.

Apples and oranges, Bob.

 RW>> Advocates for universal health care argue that costs will
 RW>> be lower in the long run for a variety of reasons.  I'm not
 RW>> sure about all that, but ...

 BK>  Since every industrialized nation that has national health care
 BK>  pays less per capita than we do, it's likely to be true.

The price of health care will drop if the government stops telling providers
how they will run their businesses, too.  That is extremely unlikely.

The one thing that's most likely to cut the cost of providing health care
is, IMO, to make discounting illegal.  *Everybody* pays the same, insured
or not, Medicare or not.  Insurors will scream bloody murder and the 
Medicare people will go ballistic, but that - IMO - is the surest way to
cut that price tag.

If you're wondering why the price tags would go down, eliminating those
discounts and requiring payment in full would remove all of the overhead
that's involved in shifting costs around until they get paid by somebody.
I'm sure there are other reasons but IMO that one's the biggie.

Yes there will still be people who cannot afford to pay.  There has always
been a mechanism to get their *required* care provided to them, it's called
'charity care' and has been around since hospitals were invented.  The cost
of such 'charity care' is factored into general operating overhead - just like
the cost of shoplifting is factored into the retail prices of goods sold in
stores (although they're not quite the same thing, in the economic sense they
are).

 RW>> YOur thinking dovetails with mine on this issue.  tHe best
 RW>> way to universal health care is to get the government to
 RW>> equip and staff such facilities.  IN fact, it makes sense,
 RW>> which is why it won't happen <g>.

 BK>  Some countries have national health care payment, with private
 BK>  sector Doctors delivering the care.

A very recent case in Britain - in the National Health Service - the patient
starved to death in the hospital over a 26 day period.  The patient had had
a stroke and could not swallow; the attending physician ordered a feeding tube
for him but the staff never got around to putting it in or noticing that it
wasn't
there.  Nobody seems to know why, but the patient's still dead.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)