Ways your life has been impacted by Obamacare

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

PS's implication that 100% prepaid medical was not insurance, even though it has a premium, so my assumption was that he was saying that because it had no deductible, it wasn't insurance.

And there are a couple small errors in your line of logic:

1) People don't just consume medical services like it's ice cream or Cable Television.  Most people don't want to visit the doctor, even if it were free.  This is part of the reason universal healthcare in most western countries is actually quite efficient.  You're giving someone something they don't want until they need it.

2) Getting people into the doctor when problems are small often avoid larger problems.  Therefore, covering certain "preventative care" under insurance is actually conducive to more cost-effective insurance.  This isn't like auto-insurance where you're giving people guaranteed low-cost coverage to cover every little nick and scratch, which contribute nothing to the running of the overall vehicle (people would abuse the $hit out of that system).  You're giving them guaranteed low-cost access to preventative medical care to prevent a $1,400 treatment from turning into a $50,000 surgery.

I'm generalizing a bit, but these markets couldn't be more different.

I'm not saying people should be able to have any kind of healthcare their heart desires for free... but it's a very, very different market than most items we consume.  Our ability to bargain or even assess our options with an insurance company or doctor are severely limited vs other items we consume.  Our willingness to use free services willy-nilly is also significantly reduced from other services our economy offers.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

People don't just consume medical services like it's ice cream or Cable Television.  Most people don't want to visit the doctor, even if it were free.

covering certain "preventative care" under insurance is actually conducive to more cost-effective insurance. 

However, when people do not have an additional dollar cost above and beyond time and hassle, they will consume more healthcare than otherwise. That might not be true for every individual, but it is unquestionably true for everyone in total. So more resources go into healthcare than otherwise would.

This is perfectly fine if it's part of a true market voluntary plan. Then the insurer would be offering this type of coverage as a profit-making endeavor. By making a profit they are proving there is value to the service. The profit would be evidence that value is being added and resources are being used efficiently to make our lives better.

Misallocation of resources happens when government planners pretend that they know better than the market. They use the threat of violence and cages to re-arrange how we produce and consume. And we are all poorer in total for it, despite some profiting big-time. This is the cause of virtually all economic crises. Left to free and voluntary action, market disruptions would be caused by new and wonderful innovation and the race to improve everyone’s life. Unfortunately we are long way from humans putting violence aside in the misguided beliefs they can achieve some good. Good things don't come out of the barrel of a gun.

[Kshartle]

It cut off where I typed I agree with both statements I quoted.

[notsheigetz]

And there are a couple small errors in your line of logic:

1) People don't just consume medical services like it's ice cream or Cable Television.  Most people don't want to visit the doctor, even if it were free.  This is part of the reason universal healthcare in most western countries is actually quite efficient.  You're giving someone something they don't want until they need it.

2) Getting people into the doctor when problems are small often avoid larger problems.  Therefore, covering certain "preventative care" under insurance is actually conducive to more cost-effective insurance.  This isn't like auto-insurance where you're giving people guaranteed low-cost coverage to cover every little nick and scratch, which contribute nothing to the running of the overall vehicle (people would abuse the $hit out of that system).  You're giving them guaranteed low-cost access to preventative medical care to prevent a $1,400 treatment from turning into a $50,000 surgery.

Don't those arguments contradict each other? You say most people avoid visiting the doctor even if it's free but then you say that making it free will get more people to see the doctor for preventative care and thus result in cost savings. So which is it?

Regardless, I think it's a very dubious assertion that free preventative care is going to result in cost savings. I predict the opposite. A quote below from this article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ves-money/

"Meanwhile, a separate study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs."

[Kshartle]

I'm pretty sure his point is that by lowering the cost of preventative care we'll get a lot more of that but this will cause a larger reduction in the total expenditure of non-preventative care.

The logic makes sense but I'm not studied enough on health care to know either way if that's possible.

[dragoncar]

And there are a couple small errors in your line of logic:

1) People don't just consume medical services like it's ice cream or Cable Television.  Most people don't want to visit the doctor, even if it were free.  This is part of the reason universal healthcare in most western countries is actually quite efficient.  You're giving someone something they don't want until they need it.

2) Getting people into the doctor when problems are small often avoid larger problems.  Therefore, covering certain "preventative care" under insurance is actually conducive to more cost-effective insurance.  This isn't like auto-insurance where you're giving people guaranteed low-cost coverage to cover every little nick and scratch, which contribute nothing to the running of the overall vehicle (people would abuse the $hit out of that system).  You're giving them guaranteed low-cost access to preventative medical care to prevent a $1,400 treatment from turning into a $50,000 surgery.

Don't those arguments contradict each other? You say most people avoid visiting the doctor even if it's free but then you say that making it free will get more people to see the doctor for preventative care and thus result in cost savings. So which is it?

Regardless, I think it's a very dubious assertion that free preventative care is going to result in cost savings. I predict the opposite. A quote below from this article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ves-money/

"Meanwhile, a separate study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs."

The assertion is hardly contradictory.  Most people don't want to visit the doctor even if its free.  But that doesn't mean they won't.  The point is that you aren't going to go in for a blood test everyday unless you have some kind of mental disorder.  On the other hand, you might go everyday for a free lunch at your favorite restaurant.

[Kshartle]

The assertion is hardly contradictory.  Most people don't want to visit the doctor even if its free.  But that doesn't mean they won't.  The point is that you aren't going to go in for a blood test everyday unless you have some kind of mental disorder.  On the other hand, you might go everyday for a free lunch at your favorite restaurant.

With the gutting of the economy from the communists in the government I suspect many would go everyday for a free lunch at their least favorite restaurant!