Can the free market fix healthcare?

[MoralLibertarian]

There are conservatives who believe that the United States has the greatest health care sysetm in the world, and they may be correct in many ways. Few would argue that the United States isn't a leader in innovation in terms of research and drugs, but in terms of coverage, the United States flounders behind most Western nations. Michael Moore's new movie is all about the inadequacies of US healthcare. His prescription for change is on his website:

1) Universal coverage for all residents (not citizens)
2) Abolishing all insurance companies
3) Extreme regulation of pharmeceutical companies (like a public utility)

I think this is a brain-dead solution. Think of the catastrophic damage it would do to the US economy, jobs, and American's taxes. Imagine how it would stifle innovation. (If anyone wants to explain how this can be done without massive economic loss, PLEASE do)

But, can the free market alone take on such problems? Many libertarians believe so, citing the 50s and 60s as the golden age of coverage in the United States, before the dawn of excessive regulation of insurance industries and doctors. However, a lot's changed since then.

What could be done? I've come up with a couple things.

1) Insurance companies, rather than out-right rejecting a person coverage, should reform their underwriting process to more accurately and completely evaluate a person's risk. Premiums paid for the rabid exerciser would be much lower than the premiums paid for the morbidly obese and the chain-smokers. The resulting larger pool would do the following

- increase revenues and profits
- decrease overall risk
- encourage healthy lifestyles

Ironically, insurance companies cannot do this because of state and federal regulations. It's easier for an insurance company to simply deny coverage than to charge a person a high premium on factors such as "obese."

2) Find archaic cases of regulation that increase costs and eliminate them. Knowing the federal government, there are such cases of regulation.

3) Establish portable HSAs and supplemental insurance. The government could do this or private companies could do this. Supplemental insurance companies like Aflac provide cash to pay for co-pays and bills. HSAs allow people to save up for unplanned co-pay expenses.

4) Find out why health care costs rise every year. It's because people are getting sicker! Why, and what can be done to encourage healthier living (refer to 1).

What else? What problems would this solution be unable to solve

I'm interested in your views on this.

[K-RadPie]

Psssh, why do we even need healthcare in the first place? I mean, come on.

[Elfer]

How would it stifle innovation? If anything, it would create a drive for less sickness and greater efficiency. In any case, I'm pretty sure there's doctors out there who are interested in medicine whether or not they can get mad stacks of cash out of it.

For example, you'd see a much bigger push for preventative healthcare, which saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

[JakeHero]

At 7/11/07 10:52 PM, Elfer wrote: How would it stifle innovation?

I hate repeading cliche lines, but here goes. Universal services hinder innovation and quality because they don't have to fight for their financial survival like provide companies do. This is due to the fact they will be continually financed by the government. So if they deliver subpar results it's no big deal for them, because their livelihood isn't at stake.

Look at our public schools. Ours are officially the shithole of industrialized nations for a myriad of reasons, but the main is it's more centralized. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in Europe and some asian countries public schools do have a more capitalist attitude than the US. Which is irony considering the US is supposed to tbe bastion of free market.

If anything, it would create a drive for less sickness and greater efficiency.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one.

In any case, I'm pretty sure there's doctors out there who are interested in medicine whether or not they can get mad stacks of cash out of it.

The individual doctor mentality has little to do with it. As a whole, people are more greedy than altruistic.

For example, you'd see a much bigger push for preventative healthcare, which saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

And a much bigger tax rate.

[scorchin-hot]

In a way free health care is a socialist idea, but that doesn't make it evil. The average person will probably spend more on paying for it in taxes than there hospital bills would be. It really is worth it to keep poor people from dying even though the tools are there to save them. The worst part about free health care is the fact that doctors lose money in wages and less people will want to become doctors thus waiting room times increase.

[JudgeDredd]

At 7/11/07 09:29 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Premiums paid for the rabid exerciser would be much lower than the premiums paid for the morbidly obese and the chain-smokers.

Hmm.. Fitness fanatics can have just as high health costs as couch potatoes. Sporty types are particularly prone to accidents with lasting (expensive) injuries. After all, morbid obesity is pretty much a modern phenomenon caused by freemarket forces (advertising bad foods to couch potatoes). The tobacco industry even more so. Effectively your question is whether there can be freemarket solutions to freemarket problems.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/12/07 02:45 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Fitness fanatics can have just as high health costs as couch potatoes. Sporty types are particularly prone to accidents with lasting (expensive) injuries.

I think paying for a lifetime of heart problems and such is a bit more expensive that rotator cuff surgery or paying for a shit knee or leg break. By a lot Im guessing.

And that can be factored into the insurance too, if you have a history of breaks, if you skydive, if you base jump, if you have crap knees, more insurance cost.

At 7/11/07 10:52 PM, Elfer wrote: How would it stifle innovation?

You cant create a drug if it dont got no cash paying for it.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/12/07 02:45 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Hmm.. Fitness fanatics can have just as high health costs as couch potatoes. Sporty types are particularly prone to accidents with lasting (expensive) injuries. After all, morbid obesity is pretty much a modern phenomenon caused by freemarket forces (advertising bad foods to couch potatoes). The tobacco industry even more so. Effectively your question is whether there can be freemarket solutions to freemarket problems.

That's not my question, since any asshole could figure out that one, no offense. That's the whole point of a free market: to find societal needs and fix them with a product or service. Admittedly, since the public demands the needs there are times when the product or service might be morally questionable.

Fitness fanatics? You mean exercise builimia? Why are you splitting hairs here? Surely you can see that an insurance company would prefer to give higher rates to a bigger health risk. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, and why would this represent a worse solution than abolishing insurance companies?

[JudgeDredd]

At 7/12/07 07:51 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That's the whole point of a free market: to find societal needs and fix them with a product or service.

I haven't seen Sicko, but here's the freemarket solution to healthcare; Insurance companies (which exist to maximise profits) are given carte blanche to investigate (buy) health records. Obese people who are concerned about their weight would fear getting health checked because this information would be onsold to insurers. Cutting out the middle men, insurers can demand a full body scan of every client. Of course they should be allowed to blood-test for dormant genes, and pre-cursor ailments aswell. In fact, if they have a crystal-ball, they should be allowed to use that too. Heck, why call it insurance at all? Just call it illdebtedness.

Of-course, even without this information, it's pretty hard for a chubby person to lie about their weight. It's self-evident just looking at them. I mean chubby people CHOSE to be health-risks after all. So here's my point. Are insurers going to charge atheletes according to their sport? Are they going to charge atheletes according to their personal history of injury, or only an average for their sport. Are they going to charge depending on frequency of all sporting activities? After all, atheletes put their body on the line more than regular un-fit people.

See, you can't just say this will affect only morbid obese people. A whole swathe of "healthy activities" would become surcharged by insurers. Of-course it would be easier for a fit athelete to lie about their high-risk activities, or hide pre-existing ailments by getting a back-yard doctor to fix the occasional injury. Because after all, they didn't exactly CHOOSE to be adrenalin-junkies. Why should they pay more than the average low-risk couch potatoe?

Surely you can see that an insurance company would prefer to give higher rates to a bigger health risk. Why shouldn't they be allowed to ...?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/12/07 11:56 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 7/12/07 07:51 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That's the whole point of a free market: to find societal needs and fix them with a product or service.

I haven't seen Sicko, but here's the freemarket solution to healthcare; Insurance companies (which exist to maximise profits) are given carte blanche to investigate (buy) health records.

Insurers actually have this power, but only for individual policies. However, there are a variety of privacy measures in place to keep an insurer from abusing this power.

Of course they should be allowed to blood-test for dormant genes, and pre-cursor ailments aswell. In fact, if they have a crystal-ball, they should be allowed to use that too. Heck, why call it insurance at all? Just call it illdebtedness.

You've touched upon some of the more controversial aspects of the plan. Eventually I predict that humans will be able to predict what kinds of health problems people will have from the day they are born, and then insurance companies (which exist to maximize profits) will likely decline their risks. As of current, the United States does not allow insurers to discriminate on the basis of (unrelated) genetic properties, but who knows when that will change. Fortunately, I think a lot of health risks will be curable or preventable early on if the United States continues innovating (I do think innovation would be stifled by increased regulation).

Are they going to charge depending on frequency of all sporting activities? After all, atheletes put their body on the line more than regular un-fit people.

This is to be decided by insurers. If you're talking about professional athletes, they are covered by blanket insurance when they're on the field, and it's paid for by whatever national league they're playing in. I'd say in total they pay much more in premiums than the people who watch them on television.

See, you can't just say this will affect only morbid obese people. A whole swathe of "healthy activities" would become surcharged by insurers.

No way. Healthy activities like "running, lifting weights, playing catch?" Believe it or not, the data show that those who spend 30-60 minutes 3-5 days a week on such activities are less likely to become sick AND have an accident. Rock climbing and base-jumping? Yes, they would probably come with higher premiums.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

The free market has killed our health-care. People are now queing up, and waitinglists are getting longer and longer. Everyone is insured, but the system if slowly choking in it's own budget-savings.

House Docters are dissapearing. That is what the free-market is doing to health-care.
I'm a supporter of the free-market, except on this point. Sounds a bit selective, I know.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/11/07 09:29 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: 1) Universal coverage for all residents (not citizens)
2) Abolishing all insurance companies
3) Extreme regulation of pharmeceutical companies (like a public utility)

Actually no, I'm pretty sure he didn't propose the abolition of insurance companies, he called for a a complete reform of the system yes, but if you done a little research you'd realize that most countries with universal health coverage also have the option of private healthcare.

I think this is a brain-dead solution. Think of the catastrophic damage it would do to the US economy, jobs, and American's taxes. Imagine how it would stifle innovation. (If anyone wants to explain how this can be done without massive economic loss, PLEASE do)

To each his own opinion, but yeah if you enjoy doing a job where you disprove applicants of getting essential healthcare, research their history of illnesses to catch them out so you can refuse them service when they need it, paying upper-management of executives of these companies obscene profits and doctors who do their 'job' well that is, doing very little work to minimize costs as was alleged in the Moore film and backed up with video footage of several medical executives confessing to these malpractices.
So hey, if it means losing these jobs to improve healthcare then yes I'm all for itI.
I do agree that it may have a slightly averse affect on the economy, but itd be a little insignificant bump.

What could be done? I've come up with a couple things.

1) Insurance companies, rather than out-right rejecting a person coverage, should reform their underwriting process to more accurately and completely evaluate a person's risk. Premiums paid for the rabid exerciser would be much lower than the premiums paid for the morbidly obese and the chain-smokers. The resulting larger pool would do the following

- increase revenues and profits
- decrease overall risk
- encourage healthy lifestyles

Jesus. There's a reason for government regulations. Its so companies don't rise premiums to obscene prices and go batshit at the health and socio-economic expense of the general population, cable companies much? corporate monopolies? Believe me, there's very legitimate reason for regulations, sometimes of course the Government does get a little carried away.
Free Market works in most cases, but when youre talking about something like healthcare no it simply won't. Its an essential need like water and electricity and if you werent aware most of the utilities are owned by the government same for the police dept. and fire dept. Do you propose we let free market economics make these essential services more 'efficient'? Know what happens when you privatize an essential service that can be monopolized?
Here
There's been plenty of problems with privatization of water utilities.
People make the argument 'if you don't like your healthcare service go to another one'. The problem is, the problem with the company arises when you need them to pay out for a health condition, if you go to another one you'll simply be denied service because of 'pre-existing conditions on application' so you're stuck. Get the idea of the problem now?
--
No its not going to encourage healthy lifestyles, if anything looking and feeling good, not being shunned by society and causing yourself a multitude of health problems should be enough of a motivation. What it simply means is these obese and chain-smokers will become too much of a liability and will look at obscene premiums which they won't be able to afford, like the 38 million americans that already can't.

2) Find archaic cases of regulation that increase costs and eliminate them. Knowing the federal government, there are such cases of regulation.

Actually, the problem can be argued there needs to be more regulation. Look at Government lobbyists, health insurance companies made some very generous contributions. Its funny that you claim youve watched Moore's film when you conveniently neglect things such as this.
"Increased costs"? You really need to look at some stats they're already making an obscene amount of profits, and are making more over every year, and you propose more deregulation to increase efficiency? How much more do you propose they make before they actually improve healthcare? Evidently "inefficient government bureaucracy" isn't the problem here, maybe its just that they're inherently meant to provide inadequate health coverage to many because they're I don't know... corporations trying to make profits?

3) Establish portable HSAs and supplemental insurance. The government could do this or private companies could do this. Supplemental insurance companies like Aflac provide cash to pay for co-pays and bills. HSAs allow people to save up for unplanned co-pay expenses.

Not such a bad idea, but no this isn't going to resolve the problem of 38 million uninsured americans. And though it may slightly improve the financial security of those stricken by a medical crises its also going to inhibit their financial freedom.
This is probably going to to wonders for the economy.. if you wanted to hell-freeze it.

4) Find out why health care costs rise every year. It's because people are getting sicker! Why, and what can be done to encourage healthier living (refer to 1).

Verify? and no, company profits are rising every year as I cited above, so even if people were getting sicker each year, its not making an indentation on insurance company profits, premium hikes may be due to.. just perhaps, greed? Obsession over increased profits?
Although I do agree with encouraging healthier living, our lifestyles clearly aren't to blame for this.

[tony4moroney]

Sorry i retract my first statement.
You're right on Moore wanting to abolish healthcare corporations. (I watched most of the movie, unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the rest). Personally i think this is fucking ridiculous, you can introduce universal healthcare without abolishing the corporations. The rest of my arguments stand.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/12/07 01:39 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Sorry i retract my first statement.
You're right on Moore wanting to abolish healthcare corporations. (I watched most of the movie, unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the rest). Personally i think this is fucking ridiculous, you can introduce universal healthcare without abolishing the corporations. The rest of my arguments stand.

I'm still in the process of reading the article about Atlanta, Georgia's experiment with privatization.

When a government agency puts a public utility up to a bid, the whole point is to alleviate it from the expensive state regulation, not keep it in place. If they wanted to save 20 million dollars a year, they should have given United Water a free hand, not the same regulation. United Water isn't free of blame either, they should have negotiated better, made their projections more conservative and did more research on the structure of the city.

Point is, this doesn't prove that privatization doesn't work. If you want to prove privatization doesn't work, ask for bids without strings attached.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/12/07 01:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote: as was alleged in the Moore film and backed up with video footage of several medical executives confessing to these malpractices.

Please, Moore is not going to show an even handed production. He may put on a good show with facts and all that but it is ONLY his opinion being shown, no other side is given air time. Just take a step back from the Moore-ship.

I do agree that it may have a slightly averse affect on the economy, but itd be a little insignificant bump.

I say you are wrong.

Keep in mind, thats only our CURRENT system. What kind of cluster fuck would we be in if we created an even larger entltiement program?

Free Market works in most cases, but when youre talking about something like healthcare no it simply won't.

You see the shit we treat with medicine nowadays? Its ridiculous. Im not saying I wouldnt go to every expense to save my own life or my parents lives (I fucking hope I wouldnt, there is no reason to treat a terminally ill patient with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical shit) but maybe we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere and say: NO, the costs are to much and one person is not worth the price of destroying the community.

That is ultimately what we are coming to. Medicine is not cheap, expecting tax payers or even insurers to foot the bill for stupidly expensivve medical treatments just because SOMETHING can be done is irresponsible. Maybe when you have a sickness that would have killed someone 999 times out of 1000 even one hundred years ago and that there is now a 40% chance of you surviving but with a huge expense, maybe we as a society just need to say NO.

The community should come first, not the individual. And 300 million idividuals will shatter our community if we do nothing about it. Health care is an essential service, to an extent. But the extent we take it to here in America and abroad is crazy. It is not a sustainable system when a medical procedure costs upwards of what an individual would make in a decade of work and we expect that procedure to happen. Not even close.

Here

I have a story from my city. The city contracted out the building of a library to a contractor. It was going all fine until about half way through the building process the construction stopped because the construction guys said they ran out of money. They lowballed their offer simply so they could get the contract, lowballed it to an unrealistic number. They got taken to court and yadda yadda, construction is going again with a different contractor.

Why is it anathema to suggest the city was stupid to accept such an unrealistic number? Was there no accountants going through the proposal and saying "Shit, there is no way this is going to work?" And then to saddle them with city regulations and not complete private ownership is another straw off the camels back.

There's been plenty of problems with privatization of water utilities.

You named one. I can name a success, the desalination plants in Saudi Arabia.

What it simply means is these obese and chain-smokers will become too much of a liability and will look at obscene premiums which they won't be able to afford, like the 38 million americans that already can't.

You say it like its a bad thing. If you are fat, out of shape, smoke, and dont give a fuck enough about your life, dont make enough money to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle, they why the fuck should anyone else care about it? Im not gonna pay for that fat lazy fucks quadrupule bypass surgery, let him die.

"Increased costs"? You really need to look at some stats they're already making an obscene amount of profits, and are making more over every year, and you propose more deregulation to increase efficiency?

Did you read the article? It clearly lists why they are making profits: lack of huge disasters and a good return on their investments.
1) The economy is not always going to be this strong, thus negating their investments in certain years.
2) There will not always be years with a lack of natural disasters.
3) It speaks on all insurers, not health insurance, thus your point is moot.

inadequate health coverage

Define that for me. What is adequate health coverage? Up to what payment by the insurers is adequate health coverage? Or is payment for everything adequate? So please, define that before you continue.

38 million uninsured americans

You keep throwing that number around. What about the other 270 million insured Americans? The billions of Americans that will come after them? Is that 38 million more important than all those people, important enough to sink our ship with debt and inflation so that they can have, as you put it, "adequate" health coverage?

Answer me that.

Obsession over increased profits?

You are going to make that case before you throw out charged words with no backing. And you clearly have no backing as, I have already pointed out, your link speaks on ALL insurance, not health insurance. You have still to make a case on the greed of health insurance with even a single relevant link.

Although I do agree with encouraging healthier living, our lifestyles clearly aren't to blame for this.

50% of our population is obese and our lifestyles arent to blame for shitloads of heart problems and the myriad of problems associated with obesity. Lifestyle isnt to blame for increasing costs of maintaing health? Huh?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/12/07 01:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote: So hey, if it means losing these jobs to improve healthcare then yes I'm all for itI.
I do agree that it may have a slightly averse affect on the economy, but itd be a little insignificant bump.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs028.htm

The official numbers are 2.3 million employees, plus 150,000 independent agents (like me). Employed in the US, by insurance companies...whenever this data was taken.

Try taking 2.4 million plus jobs out of the US economy. That means 1) more people without jobs 2) less income 3) less tax revenues 4) higher government pay-outs (unemployment) 5) decreased global competitiveness and consumption. Among other things, can the US really afford to lose millions of jobs and incomes? Can a family afford it? Is that really compassionate?

Jesus. There's a reason for government regulations. Its so companies don't rise premiums to obscene prices and go batshit at the health and socio-economic expense of the general population, cable companies much?

Did you know that insurance premiums in my particular state and in many other states are all regulated by their state government so they're not excessive?

There's been plenty of problems with privatization of water utilities.

Aside from the Georgia failure, what else is there?

People make the argument 'if you don't like your healthcare service go to another one'. The problem is, the problem with the company arises when you need them to pay out for a health condition, if you go to another one you'll simply be denied service because of 'pre-existing conditions on application' so you're stuck. Get the idea of the problem now?
--

This is why I argue for disallowing insurance companies to deny coverage, but accurately quote according to risk of the individual.

No its not going to encourage healthy lifestyles, if anything looking and feeling good, not being shunned by society and causing yourself a multitude of health problems should be enough of a motivation. What it simply means is these obese and chain-smokers will become too much of a liability and will look at obscene premiums which they won't be able to afford, like the 38 million americans that already can't.

If the "38 million" (I've heard up to 50 million, but I'm skeptical) were covered, the prices of premiums would be lower for everyone due to increased diversification of risk. All they need is a job that has health insurance right now.

2) Find archaic cases of regulation that increase costs and eliminate them. Knowing the federal government, there are such cases of regulation.

making an obscene amount of profits, and are making more over every year, and you propose more deregulation to increase efficiency?

Not for insurance companies, I'm talking about for doctors. By the way, insurance profit is not feuled by premiums and controlling costs alone. There are investments made, and the better the investments they higher the profits. Interest rates are pretty high right now if you haven't noticed, so it makes perfect sense that an increase in interest rates will cause an increase in corporate profits for insurers.

3) Establish portable HSAs and supplemental insurance. The government could do this or private companies could do this. Supplemental insurance companies like Aflac provide cash to pay for co-pays and bills. HSAs allow people to save up for unplanned co-pay expenses.

Not such a bad idea, but no this isn't going to resolve the problem of 38 million uninsured americans. And though it may slightly improve the financial security of those stricken by a medical crises its also going to inhibit their financial freedom.

From what I've heard, Sicko is all about people with health insurance who went bankrupt by co-payments. HSAs and supplemental insurance are perfect for stopping such measures (with supplemental insurance like Aflac being the best choice).

[Eoewe]

The only downside to the American health care system is the cost.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/12/07 02:09 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote: as was alleged in the Moore film and backed up with video footage of several medical executives confessing to these malpractices.

Please, Moore is not going to show an even handed production. He may put on a good show with facts and all that but it is ONLY his opinion being shown, no other side is given air time. Just take a step back from the Moore-ship.

Again, I don't agree with Moore's past films but Sicko has open to very little criticism, its a lot different then his other heavily edited biased films. I'd agree there's still some bias, and I don't disagree that there's a somewhat lack of alternative opinion but this piece is at the very least a competent film with a multitude of valid points, so calm down there.

I do agree that it may have a slightly averse affect on the economy, but itd be a little insignificant bump.

I say you are wrong.

Keep in mind, thats only our CURRENT system. What kind of cluster fuck would we be in if we created an even larger entltiement program?

The article you cited is in relation to the 77M of the baby boomers set to retire. Yes this is going to cause economic strain, regardless of universal healthcare or not these people are still going to receive entitlements. Read: Regardless.
The tone of the article is incredibly alarmist, you do realize that its always been unsustainable, have you checked out the latest numbers on the federal reserve? To get back in the black requires more then removing social security and medicaid, it means a complete overhaul of the government, especially chronic over spenders like Bush and the military industrial complex. NSA, CIA, FBI, Secret Prisons, Pentagon, Git Bay, government bureaucracy and you attack social security? Please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A282 52-2003Nov11?language=printer
I read the discretionary budget for 06 or 07 but unfortunately I didn't save the link. Here's 2003. I'm sure from memory discretionary military expenditure increased and overtook non-military expenditure. This doesn't include the billions spent on the military that's not considered discretionary expenditure. At the very least if you can't accept universal healthcare as being economically unfeasible then you can't argue that the Iraq War is justifiable or most of these military expenses.

Massachussets shows it is economically feasible to provide universal healthcare, if done correctly. Albeit, they have a slightly smaller percentage of uninsured. But their alternative take on UHC made it feasible, without raising personal taxes.

Excerpt from NYTimes Select: Harvard Economic Professor says its feasible given the current inefficient medicaid system thats already receiving $130B, an extension of that could effectively provide universal healthcare without any drastic economic crises.

You see the shit we treat with medicine nowadays? Its ridiculous. Im not saying I wouldnt go to every expense to save my own life or my parents lives. Maybe we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere and say: NO, the costs are to much and one person is not worth the price of destroying the community.


The community should come first, not the individual. And 300 million idividuals will shatter our community if we do nothing about it. Health care is an essential service, to an extent. But the extent we take it to here in America and abroad is crazy. It is not a sustainable system when a medical procedure costs upwards of what an individual would make in a decade of work and we expect that procedure to happen. Not even close.

Actually, it is sustainable as has been shown in the E.U, U.K, Spain, Australia. Pretty much any country listed by WHO higher then USA's 37th just above Cuba. Thing is all of those countries have Universal Healthcare. Lack of governmental oversight has led corporations to charge obscene prices for drugs and services that cost very little to administer, whilst in other countries they control prices and then subsidize.
That makes it a lot more sustainable. I'm not saying become a saint and save every single person at the expense of everybody else, I'm saying its feasible that at the very least being the wealthiest nation in the world and in everything else shouldnt the U.S at least rank amongst the top in the world in healthcare? Rather then its
abysmal 37thabysmal 37th , just above Cuba which spends around $250 per person on healthcare and is already stricken with severe economic problems.

There's been plenty of problems with privatization of water utilities.

You named one. I can name a success, the desalination plants in Saudi Arabia.

I can name a list of countries that succeeded with a sustainable Universal healthcare System. Same WHO article, the majority of the nations on that list above the U.S have UHCS. With the entire top ten having it.
The point was simply this, Privatization doesn't always work. Now I haven't read this article here yet but this is just to bring some evidence to my statement. I have read a multitude of Water Privatization failures, I do admit privatization of water utilities has brought benefit to many who have allowed it as well, but more often then not they operate with some form of Government oversight or regulation.

[HighlyIllogical]

The US has done government healthcare before, and it does it pretty well, I would say.

But, really, can the free market do it alone? As seen in the US, with 40 million people uninsured, I think not.

A private/public partnership would work.

[tony4moroney]

Descostheus said

You keep throwing that number around. What about the other 270 million insured Americans? Is that 38 million more important than all those people, important enough to sink our ship with debt and inflation so that they can have, as you put it, "adequate" health coverage?

Answer me that.

I never said that the 38 million uninsured americans were more important then the 300* million. I'm saying its a significant number of people that could be cared for provided we introduce a more effective system, that of course didn't neglect the 300 million. I.e *gasp* universal healthcare. And no, youre becoming an alarmist, as I said, its been formed successfully and sustainably in all the other said countries, to think the U.S is incapable and your proposition of "its impossible, the obese people deserve to die anyway the 38 million don't add up to the larger number of 300million and therefore are unimportant"
Commentary like this and your pessimism and skepticism speaks volumes about your character.
Canada I believe has around 1-5% extra tax depending on your income bracket. Yes, yes I would pay that much extra (which isn't even extra considering how much you have to pay per month in insurance) to ensure better all-round coverage for myself and family, financial piece of mind and security and the assistance of 38 million fellow Americans. Here's another group that proposes it as being economically sustainable with a proposition.
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/executive_su mmary_of_the_united_states_national_health_in surance_act_hr676.php
Coverable with only 3.3% tax on employers, wow how utterly devastating.

Although I do agree with encouraging healthier living, our lifestyles clearly aren't to blame for this.

50% of our population is obese and our lifestyles arent to blame for shitloads of heart problems and the myriad of problems associated with obesity. Lifestyle isnt to blame for increasing costs of maintaing health? Huh?

I think you mightve misinterpreted it. I'm saying it hasn't made an indentation in the wallets of health insurance corporations. Obesity isn't a phenomenon that grew overnight, its been around and grown dramatically whilst their profits are still growing.. huh?
http://www.weissratings.com/News/Ins_General/
20040922lh.htm
Interesting that they've 3 companies been given an investment credit rating of A, given the circumstances suffered.

Define that for me. What is adequate health coverage?

Inadequate health coverage means refusing to pay for ambulance rides, refusing to pay for standard medical procedures that they are in some way not covered for because of a technicality, not insuring the general welfare of the individual because of a lack of funds.
But don't take it from me, for a more definitive definition (lol)

Inadequate
1. not adequate or sufficient; inept or unsuitable.

Service
1. an act of helpful activity; help; aid: to do someone a service.
2. the supplying or supplier of utilities or commodities, as water, electricity, or gas, required or demanded by the public.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/12/07 04:22 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: A private/public partnership would work.

Anytime the government pays a private company for goods and services, they are over-priced. Why? Because firms, just like asshole liberals, think that the government's pocketbook knows no end, and for what limits there are they can just sell in treasury bonds overseas.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/12/07 02:13 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote: So hey, if it means losing these jobs to improve healthcare then yes I'm all for itI.
I do agree that it may have a slightly averse affect on the economy, but itd be a little insignificant bump.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs028.htm

The official numbers are 2.3 million employees, plus 150,000 independent agents (like me). Employed in the US, by insurance companies...whenever this data was taken.

Try taking 2.4 million plus jobs out of the US economy. That means 1) more people without jobs 2) less income 3) less tax revenues 4) higher government pay-outs (unemployment) 5) decreased global competitiveness and consumption. Among other things, can the US really afford to lose millions of jobs and incomes? Can a family afford it? Is that really compassionate?

I never said eliminate the entire healthcare industry, as you may recall I strongly disapproved of Moore's proposition to outlaw them. I just simply propose some form of UHCS. This can be complementary to the already existing companies, albeit it will most likely, inevitably cause some fall-outs. What if UHCS was rolled-out to provide for those who can't afford private health insurance whilst keeping the current healthcare system in place, with continued Government regulation to ensure non-monopolistic practices?

Jesus. There's a reason for government regulations. Its so companies don't rise premiums to obscene prices and go batshit at the health and socio-economic expense of the general population, cable companies much?

Did you know that insurance premiums in my particular state and in many other states are all regulated by their state government so they're not excessive?

That kind of backs my argument. I guess we can agree on something, although I did say that in rebuttal to your proposition of non-government regulation so its kind of like you've retracted your statement.

There's been plenty of problems with privatization of water utilities.

Aside from the Georgia failure, what else is there?

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.c fm?ID=7390
I haven't read it yet, I'm just saying there are problems with privatization of a necessity. There have been successful cases, but you'll be hard pressed to find a water utility privately run that isn't in some way regulated or run without government oversight.

People make the argument 'if you don't like your healthcare service go to another one'. The problem is, the problem with the company arises when you need them to pay out for a health condition, if you go to another one you'll simply be denied service because of 'pre-existing conditions on application' so you're stuck.
--

This is why I argue for disallowing insurance companies to deny coverage, but accurately quote according to risk of the individual.

I'd agree with that, the primary problem with health insurance is their free ability to deny coverage due to some absurd technical fault. I remember seeing a $110 bill for spending 10 minutes with a specialist because I broke my finger and somehow this wasn't covered in my insurance (was 10-11), coming from an unwealthy family it sucked and I can only imagine how it'd feel if you can't afford even basic healthcare.

No its not going to encourage healthy lifestyles, if anything looking and feeling good, not being shunned by society and causing yourself a multitude of health problems should be enough of a motivation. What it simply means is these obese and chain-smokers will become too much of a liability and will look at obscene premiums which they won't be able to afford, like the 38 million americans that already can't.

If the "38 million" (I've heard up to 50 million, but I'm skeptical) were covered, the prices of premiums would be lower for everyone due to increased diversification of risk. All they need is a job that has health insurance right now.

Yeah some estimate 45 million but that includes illegal immigrant count. I'm a little confused about what the hell would happen under that circumstance. Would we provide insurance to illegal 'aliens', or just deny healthcare? A lot of them have jobs, just jobs without insurance and its not as though they want their lifestyle to be this way.

2) Find archaic cases of regulation that increase costs and eliminate them. Knowing the federal government, there are such cases of regulation.

making an obscene amount of profits, and are making more over every year, and you propose more deregulation to increase efficiency?

Not for insurance companies, I'm talking about for doctors. By the way, insurance profit is not feuled by premiums and controlling costs alone. There are investments made, and the better the investments they higher the profits. Interest rates are pretty high right now if you haven't noticed, so it makes perfect sense that an increase in interest rates will cause an increase in corporate profits for insurers.

Look I agree with you there, but I'm just saying its in a corporation's best interests to minimize costs. If the cost is providing healthcare, then we've already got ourselves a severe conflict of interest.

3) Establish portable HSAs and supplemental insurance. The government could do this or private companies could do this. Supplemental insurance companies like Aflac provide cash to pay for co-pays and bills. HSAs allow people to save up for unplanned co-pay expenses.

Not such a bad idea, but no this isn't going to resolve the problem of 38 million uninsured americans. And though it may slightly improve the financial security of those stricken by a medical crises its also going to inhibit their financial freedom.

From what I've heard, Sicko is all about people with health insurance who went bankrupt by co-payments. HSAs and supplemental insurance are perfect for stopping such measures (with supplemental insurance like Aflac being the best choice).

Yeah it pretty much is. But the problem with supplemental insurance is it limits personal spending because you've got to contribute to taxes 401k(in a way), food, bills and foot an extra bill. It'll limit your spending and probably cause an economic recession/ downswing because itll inevitably lower consumer confidence.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/12/07 02:09 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

Please, Moore is not going to show an even handed production. He may put on a good show with facts and all that but it is ONLY his opinion being shown, no other side is given air time. Just take a step back from the Moore-ship.

No shit? The insurance companies can make press releases any time they want, Moor is limited to two hours.

That is ultimately what we are coming to. Medicine is not cheap, expecting tax payers or even insurers to foot the bill for stupidly expensivve medical treatments just because SOMETHING can be done is irresponsible. Maybe when you have a sickness that would have killed someone 999 times out of 1000 even one hundred years ago and that there is now a 40% chance of you surviving but with a huge expense, maybe we as a society just need to say NO.

But the problem is that sometimes insurers just don't pay their fair share. When I pay money to my insurance agency every year for 10 years so that when I eventually get sick it's taken care of, they had BETTER fill their damn end. The first part of sicko describes just that; for example, the company that cancelled a patients coverage when they got sick, because they uncovered a minor yeast infection that was never listed.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 7/12/07 05:04 PM, tony4moroney wrote: http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.c fm?ID=7390
I haven't read it yet, I'm just saying there are problems with privatization of a necessity. There have been successful cases, but you'll be hard pressed to find a water utility privately run that isn't in some way regulated or run without government oversight.

The whole reason that the privatization movement gained momentum in the first place is due to huge costs, inefficient design, and inept service. Do I believe that the private sector could better provide our water, transportation, electricity, etc? Yes, yes, and yes. And I will be hard-pressed to find ANY business that isn't in some way regulated or run without government intervention.

I'd agree with that, the primary problem with health insurance is their free ability to deny coverage due to some absurd technical fault.

The main problem is actually the fact that businesses are supposed to provide insurance, and that a lot of small businesses just can't afford it. Finding out how to solve this problem is truly the million-dollar question.

Yeah some estimate 45 million but that includes illegal immigrant count. I'm a little confused about what the hell would happen under that circumstance. Would we provide insurance to illegal 'aliens', or just deny healthcare?

We do provide healthcare to immigrants during emergencies, and the state government picks up the tab. Under universal health-care immigrants would almost certainly be provided healthcare.

Look I agree with you there, but I'm just saying its in a corporation's best interests to minimize costs. If the cost is providing healthcare, then we've already got ourselves a severe conflict of interest.

It's the corporation's ultimate goal to maximize profit. That can be done by minimizing costs or maximizing revenues. I think it's more humane for a business to neutralize adverse selection by charging high risks appropriately rather than completely denying coverage. Unfortunately, the state makes it easier to do the latter rather than the former.

Yeah it pretty much is. But the problem with supplemental insurance is it limits personal spending because you've got to contribute to taxes 401k(in a way), food, bills and foot an extra bill. It'll limit your spending and probably cause an economic recession/ downswing because itll inevitably lower consumer confidence.

I'm not sure you understand how it works. Supplemental insurance actually maintains a level of consumption that isn't possible without it. It works like this: You get hurt and can't work, you're paid for lost time. You get diagnosed with cancer, you're paid in advance for time lost.

[Empanado]

Over here we've been dealing with free market, privatized healthcare for a while now, and yeah, let's just say it's not going that well either. Just find some middle ground, think of what's better for the common people rather than what's better for the reputation of a political ideology, and don't listen to Michael Moore, because he's fat.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/12/07 04:02 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I'd agree there's still some bias, and I don't disagree that there's a somewhat lack of alternative opinion but this piece is at the very least a competent film with a multitude of valid points, so calm down there.

I aint getting riled up :p

There is still heavy bias, the bias doesnt only have to be shown in the editing room, the entire tone and theme of the movie can in itself be biased. And a smart man (which Moore is despite his foibles) will minimize what appears to be outright bias in favor what appears more even handed. But we are still left with an already avowed egomanic at the helm of the picture with tons of fact checkers to make his version of reality look succinct. But where is the rest of the story? Thats what you got to be aware of, I find myself doing it all the time. All of a sudden when I read a damn good book with a tremendous and convincing argument I am drawn into it. I totally buy it. But thats what a good salesman/writer/director does, they sell you their idea and make it look RIGHT. It doesnt have to be right, it just has to look right. So take astep back think for yourself, dont let him do the thinking for you.

The article you cited is in relation to the 77M of the baby boomers set to retire. Yes this is going to cause economic strain, regardless of universal healthcare or not these people are still going to receive entitlements. Read: Regardless.

So if we made an even larger entitlement program you do not think this would be the nail in the coffin? Thats a rather rosy economic projection if I may say so myself : /

Please.

The military, beauracracy, and workings of a state are the PRIMARY concern of a state. PRIMARY. That means they come first before anything else.

They have been for thousands of years and it is only in the past 50 or so politicans have begun to campaign on the secondary concerns of states, like retirement, drug benefits, and healthcare. That means these concerns come behind the primary concerns because if the primary concerns are neglected, you have no way to fund these secondary concerns in the first place.

Anyways. . . BAM. Please? Yes, please. What needs to be trimmed now? The pathetic portion of government spending the totality of the CIA, FBI, NSA, the military, State Department, etc. etc. costs or the conveyor belt that is called Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Now I am not saying our primary concerns dont need cuts, but this is also in a time of war, cant go do that now and of course the costs are going to baloon now.

Massachussets shows it is economically feasible to provide universal healthcare, if done correctly. Albeit, they have a slightly smaller percentage of uninsured. But their alternative take on UHC made it feasible, without raising personal taxes.

Massachusets is quite a bit richer than the average American state. Almost 2x to be more precise.

Actually, it is sustainable as has been shown in the E.U, U.K, Spain, Australia.

1) Those countries spend crap on their militaries because they are all under the defense umbrella of the United States. Japan showed in its rise that when you dont have to pay for your military, you can spend their tax money in a lot of other areas to help your country.
2) The American healthcare system also subsidizes those countries. We make the drugs, they slash the prices overseas, and the drug companies make their costs back in the states. It would be more than dishonest to suggest any of those countries are standing on their own doing this.

Lack of governmental oversight has led corporations to charge obscene prices for drugs and services that cost very little to administer, whilst in other countries they control prices and then subsidize.

On average it costs about $500 million to create a new drug.

Cheap?

I never said that the 38 million uninsured americans were more important then the 300* million.

And no, youre becoming an alarmist

We have an aging population, we are having less workers for every retiree we now have, we have people living to 80 years old and sitting on retirement for decades, sucking up cash, we have the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers, and we already have a huge projected debt from our current entitlement programs, and you call me an alarmist? Cmon.

I have shown you our projected debt from our current system. Multiply that times 10 if we impose a larger entitlement program.

Commentary like this and your pessimism and skepticism speaks volumes about your character.

Fuck you faggot. You dont know me and you can suck a dick. Im not sitting here throwing body blows and you can go suck a big fat cock for all I care you petulant motherfucker.

You want to know about my character? Im not so much of a rosy optimist to ignore glaring signs that the system is fucked as it is now and will be more fucked if we engorge it. Debt is already on the damned horizion and you want to ignore it like it aint gonna fucking matter? Well, it wil mater a fucking lot, how does hyper inflation sound to you when people stop investing in America because our debt is to huge? Hows that sound, the complete destruction of our country because we decided it was to damn hard to wrangle our debt under countrol. And the amazing part is we want to INCREASE our entitlement programs when there is already a consensus they need fixing.

You want to pass judgements on my character and you dont know a damned thing about me. Fuck you faggot and fuck the fucking horse you rode in on you fucking bitch. Dont disprespect me when you dont know a damned thing about me.

Im not saying another damned word to you faggot. I dont deal with people who are so damned disrespectful they want to speak on my CHARACTER not knowing a single fucking thing about me. I can deal with insults and flame wars, that shit is SOP. What I cant deal with is fucking arrogant little cock suckers that want to make a fucking JUDGEMENT ON ME without know the DAMNDEST THING ABOUT ME. Fuck you faggot.

Disrespectufl little cretin, go suck some more off Moores teat you little goon.

[Demosthenez]

In recent years, the number of uninsured people in the United States has been pegged at approximately 40 million, or about 16 percent of the nonelderly population. By CBO's analysis, that estimate overstates the number of people who are uninsured all year and more closely approximates the number who are uninsured at a point in time during the year. A more accurate estimate of the number of people who were uninsured for all of 1998--the most recent year for which reliable comparative data are available--is 21 million to 31 million, or 9 percent to 13 percent of nonelderly Americans.

The most direct comparison of the two measures comes from a study of SIPP data that found that 14.8 percent of Americans (including the elderly) were uninsured at a point in time in 1992, while 7.6 percent were uninsured all year.

Forty-five percent of the uninsured spells that began between July 1996 and June 1997 lasted four months or less, whereas about 16 percent lasted more than 24 months .

Some more info. 38 million Americans? Yeah, take an axe to that number and slash it in half.

[tony4moroney]

Fuck you faggot. You dont know me and you can suck a dick. Im not sitting here throwing body blows and you can go suck a big fat cock for all I care you petulant motherfucker.

You want to know about my character? Im not so much of a rosy optimist to ignore glaring signs that the system is fucked as it is now and will be more fucked if we engorge it.

You want to pass judgements on my character and you dont know a damned thing about me. Fuck you faggot and fuck the fucking horse you rode in on you fucking bitch. Dont disprespect me when you dont know a damned thing about me.

Im not saying another damned word to you faggot. I dont deal with people who are so damned disrespectful they want to speak on my CHARACTER not knowing a single fucking thing about me. I can deal with insults and flame wars, that shit is SOP. What I cant deal with is fucking arrogant little cock suckers that want to make a fucking JUDGEMENT ON ME without know the DAMNDEST THING ABOUT ME. Fuck you faggot.

Disrespectufl little cretin, go suck some more off Moores teat you little goon.

lol, well i did like the arguments you presented and i do stress i did like them. But this was prior to showing how much of an immature spastic you are. I must digress from the issue and state once again: Do you understand the meaning of irony? In exploding after I made one slightly inappropriate response that was justified through:
and im paraphrasing; "fat people ate themselves that way, they dont deserve to live"
"hey 250 million americans beats 38 therefore i wont make a proposal pro or against. ill just say they can get fucked, tough luck"
--
Then on your emotional tirade you've in fact ironically just verified my analyzes that you were perhaps of poor character, and you did so quite succinctly i might add, ive never seen it so concisely and thoroughly done.
There's nothing more to say other then that this emotional slew of specifically anti-homosexual hatred speaks a lot on your behalf about who you are, congrats on being incredibly pathetic.

lol have a nice day.

[Elfer]

At 7/11/07 11:59 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/11/07 10:52 PM, Elfer wrote: How would it stifle innovation?

I hate repeading cliche lines, but here goes. Universal services hinder innovation and quality because they don't have to fight for their financial survival like provide companies do. This is due to the fact they will be continually financed by the government. So if they deliver subpar results it's no big deal for them, because their livelihood isn't at stake.

In theory, this makes sense. In reality, the driving force is to make the most money by any means possible, rather than to provide the best product. In many cases, the product is improved to beat out other companies by luring in more customers, but this doesn't hold true with health care. If you increase profits by cutting the amount you pay your workers, you make more money and produce an inferior product. If you prefer to wait for a patient to become sick and then treat their illness, you make more money than by giving them preventative health advice, but you deliver an inferior product.

With a public health care system, you strike a better balance by trying to minimize costs through preventing illnesses.

Look at our public schools. Ours are officially the shithole of industrialized nations for a myriad of reasons, but the main is it's more centralized. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in Europe and some asian countries public schools do have a more capitalist attitude than the US. Which is irony considering the US is supposed to tbe bastion of free market.

I agree that centralization is a problem with US schools, but that doesn't mean that privatization is the answer. It means that schools should be given more leeway to operate on an individual basis. In Canada, there's a lot less standardized testing (we don't even have an SAT), and most of the public schools do quite fine, since we instead standardize the curriculum, so rather than studying for the same multiple choice tests, the goal is to learn the same things, so universities and colleges can determine what concepts you already know by looking at the courses you took in high school.

The thing about private schools is that there's no such standardization, so often you get kids coming out of prestigious (read: expensive) private schools who are not only complete elitist dicks, but know fuck all anyway.

For example, you'd see a much bigger push for preventative healthcare, which saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

And a much bigger tax rate.

America spends more per capita on health care than countries with universal care. In general, the cost is either transferred from taxes to health insurance, or you have no insurance and you get fucked up the ass with medical bills.

A push for preventative care would actually reduce costs, because it's a lot cheaper to give someone advice on how to live a healthy life than it is to operate on someone's arteries.

[JakeHero]

At 7/12/07 10:37 PM, Elfer wrote: In theory, this makes sense.

It's no longer just a hypothesis or theory, it's a fact.

In reality, the driving force is to make the most money by any means possible, rather than to provide the best product.

And that desire to upscale your competitors is the catalyst for new innovation. An example would be aspirin. Not to be overlooked, it's become much more fast-reacting and relieving than its previous designs. By investing in the best research or manufacturing that would yield the best product is the fruit of ambition

In many cases, the product is improved to beat out other companies by luring in more customers, but this doesn't hold true with health care. If you increase profits by cutting the amount you pay your workers, you make more money and produce an inferior product.

I believe your first flaw in reasoning is that you state the companies will cut the pay of their workers inexplicably. A pay cut doesn't happen frequently, and usually it is the result of financial setbacks. If a company does well so will it's employees, if a company suffers so will those that are employed by it. That's how the market works. Secondly, you assume that if you downsize some employees that it's going to infect the performance, which is why they have "Effiecency Experts." Typically, a company makes decisions that will benefit it, if cutting pay will result in the decline of a product and hurt their finances, then I highly doubt they'll make it.

If you prefer to wait for a patient to become sick and then treat their illness, you make more money than by giving them preventative health advice, but you deliver an inferior product.

I do see your reasoning here. A doctor will make more money giving someone medication instead of outright curing a patient, but this isn't because companies realize they'd make more money with preventative healthcare. After watching an infomercial on alzheimers I became aware of the obstacles medical researchers face. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars just to fund researching for a longterm cure for a disease, not counting producing a cure, it takes years and years of research, plus these research teams must be on the upkeep considering different strains of disease surface. This is one reason why the last disease we cured was polio. If diseases were that easy to remedy, I'm pretty sure one of the other socialist nations would of discovered a cure.

If you want to go on to say that countries will universal healthcare for these cures I'll have to give you a brief history lesson on the flu vaccine the USSR produced.

With a public health care system, you strike a better balance by trying to minimize costs through preventing illnesses.

Or it could face the same problems as all other socialized services(NOTE I use the term "socialized" very loosely in this case).

I agree that centralization is a problem with US schools, but that doesn't mean that privatization is the answer.

I concur with that much. After thinking about it in more depth, I decided utterly abolishment of public schools wouldn't do much except exclude a demograph from education. What I want is drastic reforms to be used.

It means that schools should be given more leeway to operate on an individual basis.

I think should be runned more like individuals city states and less like a bureaucracy. Also, teacher unions are a huge problem in the US.

In Canada, there's a lot less standardized testing (we don't even have an SAT), and most of the public schools do quite fine, since we instead standardize the curriculum, so rather than studying for the same multiple choice tests, the goal is to learn the same things, so universities and colleges can determine what concepts you already know by looking at the courses you took in high school.

Consistency is a good goal, but the differences in our system is wording alone. What I would like is the option Japan and those european countries have. This includes minor tuition, a greater amount of freedom to punish/expell disruptive students among others.

The thing about private schools is that there's no such standardization, so often you get kids coming out of prestigious (read: expensive) private schools who are not only complete elitist dicks, but know fuck all anyway.

There are advantages a private school have over a public school.

America spends more per capita on health care than countries with universal care.

In general, the cost is either transferred from taxes to health insurance, or you have no insurance and you get fucked up the ass with medical bills.

A push for preventative care would actually reduce costs, because it's a lot cheaper to give someone advice on how to live a healthy life than it is to operate on someone's arteries.

This doesn't surprise me. Looks like I spoke out of ignorance.