Board 8 > Health care is NOT health insurance

(+) Yeah! (+)

I recently noticed that people @d me in the politics containment topic (can this be a bannable offense plz) and obviously I don't want to post in there, so I'm making this topic. Plus, this is pretty important concept that I think answers a LOT of questions and addresses a LOT of conflicts in current politics.

---

Here's the relevant conversation:
@SmartMuffin posted...

@Mershaaay posted...

@ChaosTonyV4 posted...

couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition

I'd like to call upon the libertarians @foolm0r0n @SmartMuffin to explain why this doesn't matter. I'm interested in hearing the argument.

Because that's not how insurance works. You also can't get homeowners insurance to pay to rebuild your house after your house burns down.

Okay so here's what it comes down to:

Health care
You have a health problem and you pay for a service to fix it
Health people DO NOT pay for sick people

Health insurance
Just like any other insurance, but for your health (you pay a little bit so that when there's an unexpected disaster you are covered)
Healthy people DO pay for sick people, just like any other insurance

There's a very obvious and clear difference between these two concepts right?

---

Here's the problem:
In the US, health care and health insurance are completely entangled together and monopolized by the health industry and government

So when the question comes up, "how do we improve healthcare in the US??", a pretty damn obvious first step is to divorce health care from health insurance. This will allow the markets to actually operate independently and truthfully, which fixes this ridiculous bubble that the US health industry is in. If anyone has examples of other countries doing this let me know. (Socialized health care actually could be an example of this because it eliminates insurance altogether, leaving just the care part)

---

Now for some scenarios, and how you SHOULD solve them:

You are having your period and you need tampons. You knew this would happen because you are a woman. -> Health care
You got an infection from that tampon. There's no way you could've predicted this. -> Health insurance

You are hungry. You knew this would happen because you are a human. -> Grocery store
You are hungry but you're too stupid to cook. -> Restaurant
You are hungry all the time because surprise, you have a tape worm. -> Health insurance

You are driving and your tire blows up on a nail. You knew this would happen because it just does. -> Tire store
You are driving and your tire blows up which makes you rear end someone. That rarely happens. -> Car insurance
You are driving and your tire blows up and you crash and get a concussion. -> Health insurance
You are driving and your entire car blows up. -> Life insurance

Do you see how all these industries are related to each other in these similar situations, but health insurance itself is only appropriate to solve portion of these problems? Tire shops and restaurants don't need to be absorbed into the "health care industry" just because of scenarios like this.

So then, regarding the pre-existing condition argument that I quoted:

You go to chemo. You knew this would happen because you have cancer. -> Health care
You have a routine physical (health care) wherein you discover you have cancer. Damn. -> Health insurance

Get it?
---

And yet you @'ed me in your horrible topic.

insta-ban plz
---

foolm0r0n posted...

You are having your period and you need tampons. You knew this would happen because you are a woman. -> Health care

What about when vlado gets his period? He's not a woman...
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

What about when vlado gets his period? He's not a woman...

Babies 'R Us
---

Socialized medicine frequently involves health insurance.

Here's Frontline's coverage. It's about ten years old, but it does a good job of covering several industrialized countries' health care systems.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Here's the problem:
In the US, health care and health insurance are completely entangled together and monopolized by the health industry and government


gee I wonder how we ended up with such a dumb and stupid system that kills people

(spoilers, its cuz of socialist wage controls passed by FDR during the new deal)
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Here's the problem:
In the US, health care and health insurance are completely entangled together and monopolized by the health industry and government


gee I wonder how we ended up with such a dumb and stupid system that kills people

(spoilers, its cuz of socialist wage controls passed by FDR during the new deal)

It got progressively worse under Nixon. He thought Edgar Kaiser's program was a good thing, and HMOs became a thing.

Realistically, you're dealing with a cost spiral that goes way back to the early 20th century. In some ways, it was unavoidable. Resolving the problem at this point is going to take far more than either Obama or Trump could/can do about it.

way back to the early 20th century

also known as "the progressive era"

it was unavoidable

nope

just have free markets

then you avoid it
---

I'm going to simplify things by a lot.

Here's the thing: free markets aren't always what you want when they lead to poor results. For example, free markets led to poor standards in medical schooling. After some government intervention, there were fewer schools with higher standards. That, however, helped to drive up prices.

While that was happening, there were problems with medical records (the administrative side of medicine). That took some fixing, but that, too, helped to drive up prices.

Then there's technological innovations. As you can imagine, that raised prices.

All of this led to higher health care costs. Insurance became more in-demand. People used health care more since they had insurance, and hospitals were happy to oblige and soak up that sweet, sweet reimbursement. Also, there was Medicare and Medicaid. Higher demand led to higher prices.

Insurances needed to cut costs. Government (Nixon) thought they could control costs through HMOs. They sort of did(n't), but HMOs were a bad proposition for patients and they cut reimbursements to providers. While all of this was happening, there were more innovations, medical schools became more expensive, and the need for more administrative services raised overhead. More products came out, more patients came on, people who couldn't afford health insurance and couldn't qualify for Medicaid used high-priced emergency services, and the costs were passed on to insurances and patients.

I've skipped a lot, but that's the abbreviated story of US healthcare. If the government dropped all of its regulations right now, you'd still have expensive health insurance, expensive health care, broke people who couldn't afford to pay, doctors who need to pay their own expenses, and patients who can not and will not accept fewer health care services.

Here's the thing: free markets aren't always what you want when they lead to poor results. For example, free markets led to poor standards in medical schooling. After some government intervention, there were fewer schools with higher standards. That, however, helped to drive up prices.

free markets are leading to a poor result so lets introduce government regulation which leads to a different poor result but also wastes a ton of money employing bureaucrats who reduce freedom

brilliant
---

I'd also like to point oout what the government's health INSURANCE website is called

https://www.healthcare.gov
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I'd also like to point oout what the government's health INSURANCE website is called

https://www.healthcare.gov

gee its almost like deliberately confusing discrete concepts helps them

must have been those damn anti-science republicans
---

thank you for the clarification
---

Uglyface2 posted...

Socialized medicine frequently involves health insurance.

If you socialize all health care, then you don't need health insurance, since insurance exists only to provide funds for the care
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Here's the thing: free markets aren't always what you want when they lead to poor results. For example, free markets led to poor standards in medical schooling. After some government intervention, there were fewer schools with higher standards. That, however, helped to drive up prices.

free markets are leading to a poor result so lets introduce government regulation which leads to a different poor result but also wastes a ton of money employing bureaucrats who reduce freedom

brilliant

And I suppose you think the late 19th century's medical system was somehow better?

SmartMuffin posted...

anti-science republicans

No those came up with "World's Greatest Healthcare Plan"
---

Uglyface2 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Here's the thing: free markets aren't always what you want when they lead to poor results. For example, free markets led to poor standards in medical schooling. After some government intervention, there were fewer schools with higher standards. That, however, helped to drive up prices.

free markets are leading to a poor result so lets introduce government regulation which leads to a different poor result but also wastes a ton of money employing bureaucrats who reduce freedom

brilliant

And I suppose you think the late 19th century's medical system was somehow better?

Adjusted for technology improvements, it is 100% guaranteed that it was better
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Socialized medicine frequently involves health insurance.

If you socialize all health care, then you don't need health insurance, since insurance exists only to provide funds for the care

nah then you just need "the government refuses to pay for this thing I need because it's broke or it doesn't like me for various reasons" insurance
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Here's the thing: free markets aren't always what you want when they lead to poor results. For example, free markets led to poor standards in medical schooling. After some government intervention, there were fewer schools with higher standards. That, however, helped to drive up prices.

free markets are leading to a poor result so lets introduce government regulation which leads to a different poor result but also wastes a ton of money employing bureaucrats who reduce freedom

brilliant

And I suppose you think the late 19th century's medical system was somehow better?

Adjusted for technology improvements, it is 100% guaranteed that it was better

Then you're all for inconsistent education from medical diploma mills leading to physicians that run the gamut of proficient to quackery? Sorry, I rather prefer that I'm not getting seen by someone who couldn't get licensed under the current system.

Health insurance is a free market solution.

It's just one that sucks
---

Then you're all for inconsistent education from medical diploma mills leading to physicians that run the gamut of proficient to quackery? Sorry, I rather prefer that I'm not getting seen by someone who couldn't get licensed under the current system.

Then don't. If you want to see a better, more expensive doctor, then go see one. Do some simple research to figure out which schools are diploma mills and which ones aren't.

Don't tell me what doctors I'm allowed to see or not see.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Socialized medicine frequently involves health insurance.

If you socialize all health care, then you don't need health insurance, since insurance exists only to provide funds for the care

It really depends on the system you want to use to socialize health care. "Socialize" can mean any number of terms. The Frontline program I linked to is really good at providing the pros and cons of several systems; I highly recommend taking an hour and watching it.

SmartMuffin posted...

Then you're all for inconsistent education from medical diploma mills leading to physicians that run the gamut of proficient to quackery? Sorry, I rather prefer that I'm not getting seen by someone who couldn't get licensed under the current system.

Then don't. If you want to see a better, more expensive doctor, then go see one. Do some simple research to figure out which schools are diploma mills and which ones aren't.

Don't tell me what doctors I'm allowed to see or not see.

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

I'd figure it out.

It'd probably be cheaper and easier than paying half my salary to finance an army to go around jailing people who don't meet my own personal standard of what a good doctor should be.
---

If you're that committed to a return to poorer standards, then have at it.

Also I've literally never in my life personally verified that any doctor or dentist or whoever I've seen is actually licensed. Nor did I find or locate them by looking them up in some government registry or database. I selected them the same way I select any other service provider - by word of mouth, reputation, convenience, cost, etc.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

nah then you just need "the government refuses to pay for this thing I need because it's broke or it doesn't like me for various reasons" insurance

Well the rich ones can just fly to the US for that
---

Uglyface2 posted...

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

Do you not? Its a person you are literally trusting with your life. Does the socialization of the medical industry make you feel so safe that you dont think you need to check credentials or have any sort of quality test for these people? Do you think the charlatans just disappeared?
---

I mean Ben Carson is literally a neurosurgeon.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

Do you not? Its a person you are literally trusting with your life. Does the socialization of the medical industry make you feel so safe that you dont think you need to check credentials or have any sort of quality test for these people? Do you think the charlatans just disappeared?

but THE GOVERNMENT says they are qualified

those dudes are never wrong and always have your best interest at heart!
---

Uglyface2 posted...

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

It's stupidly easy to beat "government said so" as a measure of confidence in my doctor
---

I think there's an expectation that if you have health insurance, it should pay for all of your health care costs.

But that's not really the point of health insurance. A system with health insurance means that there will be lots of instances where individuals will have to pay for their health care.


So if you aren't okay with that (because it sounds awful) you should just get socialized health care tbh.
---

CoolCly posted...

I think there's an expectation that if you have health insurance, it should pay for all of your health care costs.

I don't think there is that expectation at all. You buy toothpaste, bandaids, condoms, tampons, etc at the store like anything else. But we're just so used to those things being normal every day cheap things.

Could the healthcare industry monopolize toothpaste and condoms like it does birth control and other drugs? Probably. I'm sure they've tried and are actively trying at all times.
---

The one thing I've pulled from this is that you folks really have no idea how bad it was before there were government interventions that improved medical schools and physician credentialing. You genuinely seem to believe that a system where physicians weren't necessarily put through rigorous training before plying their trade on the unsuspecting masses would be preferable to what we have today.

I'm fairly confident that not one of you is going to watch that Frontline episode because it's easier to spout off any old bulls*** that comes to you than it is to... what, exactly? Spend an hour learning something? Maybe be able to say something more meaningful than, "Socialize," or, "Free market solution"?

frontline episode is the new casual revolution of 2007
---

Uh I'll watch it eventually but if you think a 1 hour documentary is gonna convince everyone that you're right then you're wrong
---

I think a one hour documentary is going to make people say, "This is more multi-faceted than I initially thought." That's all I'm looking for.

I know it's complex

Oh crap I forgot to post my disclaimer... my post was too long so I was gonna post it after:

Yes I know this is super simplifying things and health care and insurance NEED to be SOMEWHAT intertwined for several reasons, but they should still be considered as separate concepts
---

SM is the only one in here with a brain.

FDR was awful, things were immensely better before government got involved in this s***. They have ZERO right to say who should and should not be able to practice.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

Do you not? Its a person you are literally trusting with your life. Does the socialization of the medical industry make you feel so safe that you dont think you need to check credentials or have any sort of quality test for these people? Do you think the charlatans just disappeared?

I mean, personally the way I choose a doctor is by calling up my insurance and asking them which doctor I'm allowed to go see without paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket for it. And then they tell me, and then I go to that one doctor in like six months because they aren't available sooner than that.

So like, research doesn't really get a chance to enter into the equation.
---

Also fool sort of hits the nail on the head.

The main issue is that thr cost of most healthcare past the tampon level is driven by the existence of health insurance.

Breaking your leg should be closer to the blew out a tire end of the spectrum, not the caused a car accident end and its totally out of whack and this is the basic problen
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

They have ZERO right to say who should and should not be able to practice.

So you're for the full and complete legalization of all drugs, yeah?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

EmDubyaSee posted...

They have ZERO right to say who should and should not be able to practice.

So you're for the full and complete legalization of all drugs, yeah?

Except Meth, which isn't even natural, and can blow up your neighbors house.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Because that's not how insurance works. You also can't get homeowners insurance to pay to rebuild your house after your house burns down.

Yeah but if my house burns down I can just move to a new house and get that house insured. I lose the asset of my old house but I can move forward and not have this one incident dragging me down forever.

But if I get cancer, I can't become a new person who never had cancer and get insurance.
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Yeah but if my house burns down I can just move to a new house and get that house insured. I lose the asset of my old house but I can move forward and not have this one incident dragging me down forever.

But if I get cancer, I can't become a new person who never had cancer and get insurance.

Another analogy would be if you were refused homeowner's insurance because, when you were 8, your house burned down. Even though you're 18 now and applying for coverage for a completely different house.
---

Uglyface2 posted...

I'm fairly confident that not one of you is going to watch that Frontline episode because it's easier to spout off any old bulls*** that comes to you than it is to... what, exactly? Spend an hour learning something? Maybe be able to say something more meaningful than, "Socialize," or, "Free market solution"?

I mean you know frontline is a show known for fear mongering for views right?
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Yeah but if my house burns down I can just move to a new house and get that house insured. I lose the asset of my old house but I can move forward and not have this one incident dragging me down forever.

But if I get cancer, I can't become a new person who never had cancer and get insurance.

health insurance is a bet you take where you wager your own health against financial loss. if you remain healthy then you have a net financial loss. if you get sick then you win the bet, but the payout is money to help cover your health care costs. the fact that not taking the bet and then getting sick REALLY SUCKS and there is no do-over is not an argument for why they should be forced to pay you anyway. it's an argument for why you should get health insurance.

if health insurance providers were forced to give a payout to every single person that did not take the bet just because "if I get cancer I can't un-cancer myself" then no person would ever buy health insurance. they would just wait until they get sick and then make the bet, ensuring them to always get a payout and never have to pay in.

except, whoops, if that were the case then why would anyone bother to start a company that provides health insurance? they would have no way of making any money because no one would ever pay in to their system and they'd be constantly forced to pay for other people's heath care costs that never bothered to buy insurance before getting sick.

it would break the entire system.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

it would break the entire system.

The system's already broken, you're just describing the symptoms. The fact is that health insurance is never going to work the way people want it to/intuitively believe it should. You've accurately described the reason for that, but IMO the response should be, "fine, they can all go out of business then."
---

MariaTaylor posted...

if health insurance providers were forced to give a payout to every single person that did not take the bet just because "if I get cancer I can't un-cancer myself" then no person would ever buy health insurance. they would just wait until they get sick and then make the bet, ensuring them to always get a payout and never have to pay in.

When I was 8, I was diagnosed with Tourrette's Syndrome, OCD, and ADHD, and was treated for it. I was on the insurance provided through the company my father works for, because I was considered his dependent.

Now, flash forward to adulthood, I apply for my own insurance in the event that something happens - like getting injured, maimed, or whatever. I get denied. Because I have pre-existing conditions - Tourrette's, OCD, and ADHD. Even though I no longer need treatment for them, and am coping just fine without medication for them, I was still denied insurance at all.

And that is why the pre-existing conditions clause is nonsense.
---

Kenri posted...

You've accurately described the reason for that, but IMO the response should be, "fine, they can all go out of business then."

well I'm glad we at least see things the same way even if our opinion on the situation is different. just curious but what do you believe the solution is? the doctors who are providing health care in the end ultimately need to get paid somehow. if there is no insurance agency to pay them where does the money come from?

BowserCuffs posted...

When I was 8, I was diagnosed with Tourrette's Syndrome, OCD, and ADHD, and was treated for it. I was on the insurance provided through the company my father works for, because I was considered his dependent.

Now, flash forward to adulthood, I apply for my own insurance in the event that something happens - like getting injured, maimed, or whatever. I get denied. Because I have pre-existing conditions - Tourrette's, OCD, and ADHD. Even though I no longer need treatment for them, and am coping just fine without medication for them, I was still denied insurance at all.

I'm confused, is this a hypothetical? I think what you're describing is not currently legal.

anyway if that happened to you I guess I'm sorry to hear that. although it seems like if you shopped around to different providers you should be able to find someone who would be willing to cover you.
---