jorgelito

This a great thread and great discussion, really involved.

Host, buddy, you need to relax man. I'm not sure how or why I offended you but you know, Jazz is an insurance professional/expert so it makes sense to seek his opinion. Similarly any doctors, lawyers on the board would contribute greatly to the thread.

This discussion has evolved alot since I last logged in so I don't know if it makes sense to respond to some of the replies to my earlier post. But I will do my best to advance the discussion.

Insurance is a great mystery to alot of us so it helps to get a basic understanding from a proifesisonal on how it works. It's a weird product and almost counter capitalism/consumerism. Ideally, you will be paying for something that hopefully you will never use. I think that screws with most people's economic philosophies.

I want to try and distill the issue further and spread it out a bit.

Some of the reasons people are against "socialized" medicine is because:

1. Fear that the state would be too incompetent or inefficient at administering the service of health care.

2. Raising of taxes.

3. The free rider or sucker principle - people are afaraid that they may pay a lot of taxes for minimal service" or that people who pay less taxes will reap more benefit.

I think somewhere in there, it is very possible that widely available, affordable, and accessible health care would increase the societies' aggregate health and reduce costs over the long run. I also think there would be a huge cost in the beginning but then, in theory, as people access preventive health care and such, then overall costs would start to come down.

Maybe the big hang up is that we are too afraid to give it a shot.

Part of the problem is political. No politician will be in office long enough to gain politically from such a major change and more likely will lose politically because of the long time frame for such an initiative. As a jumpy and impatient society, we need to see "instant results". The very nature of such paradigm shifting initiative implementation runs counter to our politics.

In the Hillary example, it's quite possible that if the Congress had implemented her program back then, then we would be seeing some of the results today, almost 15 years later in the form of better health for our society and lower costs. It's possible but no way to really tell.

Some people here are praising the French model. I would be interested in hearing more about it if anyone is in the know. How much does it cost? How is the quality of care? How is it viable? It sounds too good to be true - cheap/free healthcare for everyone? Surely there has to be a cost somewhere. What do the doctors and hospitals think? Is there insurance in France?

Most of us only hear stories (good or bad) regarding healthcare in other countries such as Canada or UK - it's cheap or free, long lines, poor quality and poor service, cheap or free drugs etc.

I think there has to be a compromise in there somewhere.

Maybe a basic healthcare system for everyone and private healthcare/insurance for those who want it. I think it could be possible to balance an affordable and accessible health care system for everyone. Preventive care goes a long way. EX: filling a cavity today saves you money and pain of a route canal later on. Regular checkups are cheaper (I think) than going to the ER because something you could have prevented got worse.

I think with a good basic healthcare system for everyone, I would still opt to buy a private healthcare plan as I got older, but if someone could not afford it, at least they would get some basic care. 42 million uninsured people having access to health care would go along way in bettering the aggregate health of of our country as a whole. I would guess that it would lead to healthier workers, happier workers and more productive workers.

This is all assuming people would actually use the health care especially for preentive purposes instead of letting things get out of hand or stop taking care of themselves.

Oh yeah, will, thanks for the links, I will look at them.

Also, I wasn't really looking for stats or figures per se, rather I wanted to hear your opinion on the role of the insurance industry in health care more in depth. Despite our differences, I do like to hear your opinion (I wasn't looking for an argument, more of a discussion).

On responsibility, I mean people who "hurt themselves" and thus putting unnecessary strin on the system and/or endangering other people. I realize this is a bit vague and even slippery slopish, but I find it very relevant to the discussion because it implies that extra "unnecessary cost could be placed ona unversal system needlessly. EX: in LA, many ERs were shut down in part because gangbangers keep shooting each other only to get patched up by the ER and then they are back at it again shooting each other only to end back up in the ER only to get patched up and then they are back at it again..... Or drug users that refuse to get help but then end up in the ER. Recover, then end back up in the ER. Or many people who can't afford to have children, do so anyways and go to the ER then keep on having kids and going to the ER. Or smokers who get sick and then end up in the hospital. I am not so sure I like the idea of a smoker getting free (costly) health care to treat something that they caused themselves. In that sense, it would feel like I am paying for someone elses irresponsible behavior. To put another twist on it: imagine free abortions courtesy of the state. So on and so forth.