FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2013, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2013 07:54 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 07:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You and are both in the same boat and I never really questioned the wisdom of it all until I lived in Switzerland.

Yabut, health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). How is that any different than your objections to Obamacare? Seems even stricter to Girly.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 08:03 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 07:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yabut, health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). How is that any different than Obamacare?

The Swiss system is radically different from Obamacare because the Swiss were smart enough to eliminate the perverse incentive in Obamacare--something Obamacare-defenders refuse to admit is even there, and thus they haven't done anything to eliminate it. In Switzerland the 'compulsory' insurance is non-profit with one uniform rate set by the government. So the insurance companies have zero incentive to jack up the costs of health care like US companies do. The Swiss insurance companies only make a profit by selling add-on services under a voluntary free-market system, where they must compete vigorously to provide the best service at the best price. The US is the opposite where the insurance companies make a profit on the compulsory part, and thus have an invested interest in making sure health care costs are as high as they can make them since there's no free market competition.

I don't think any country except the US would pass a crony-capitalism law like that which is such a huge gift to insurance companies, requiring everybody to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation.

However that's a separate issue from the way Switzerland has succeeded in promoting policies so people save, invest. Here's a good study of the Swiss system:

[Switzerland has] no national health service and most of the population is covered by voluntary health insurance. There is also no central program to provide a minimum guaranteed income for all of the population.... Unlike the major European welfare states, the Swiss federal government defers in much greater measure to local autonomy. But in one critical respect it has achieved what the United States and European nations traditionally defined as welfare states have not: It has all but eliminated “welfare dependency,” or intergenerational poverty, and it has done this in a strikingly different manner than other developed societies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 08:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 07:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yabut, health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). How is that any different than Obamacare?

The Swiss system is radically different from Obamacare because the Swiss were smart enough to eliminate the perverse incentive in Obamacare--something Obamacare-defenders refuse to admit is even there, and thus they haven't done anything to eliminate it. In Switzerland the 'compulsory' insurance is non-profit with one uniform rate set by the government.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's what's coming next in the US. Baby steps and shit and whatnot. And that sure as shit is about as far from libertarian as I can imagine. Tongue

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 08:54 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 08:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's what's coming next in the US. Baby steps and shit and whatnot. And that sure as shit is about as far from libertarian as I can imagine. Tongue

No arguments from me there. Switzerland is definitely not 100% libertarian, and their health care mandate is an obvious example. In fact, Switzerland's system is functionally similar to government-run single payer systems in the rest of Europe in that the government tightly controls it and sets the prices.

Obviously I'd prefer a free-market system without coercion. BUT, if you are going to force everyone to buy insurance, the Swiss system is orders of magnitude more intelligent that the US system. The Swiss would never introduce a perverse incentive by ordering everyone to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation that could set it's own prices. That's a uniquely American solution.

However, I don't share your faith that the US will fix this, because one thing American corporations are the best in the world at is hiring lobbyists and PR firms to brainwash the people. The ACA is a golden goose for the insurance companies, and they will do everything possible to defend it. The health insurance lobby has even succeeded in brainwashing a college-educated physicist like cjlr into believing that there's no perverse incentive in the ACA. Cjlr won't even accept that given that the insurance company's profit comes by marking up the expenses 25%, the insurance company makes more profit by see the prices go up. If a physicist, like cjlr, can't see past the insurance PR machine, I have little faith that less educated voters will revolt. I think Americans will just keep paying more and more for health care and keep getting less and less.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 08:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 08:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's what's coming next in the US. Baby steps and shit and whatnot. And that sure as shit is about as far from libertarian as I can imagine. Tongue

However, I don't share your faith that the US will fix this, because one thing American corporations are the best in the world at is hiring lobbyists and PR firms to brainwash the people.

Oh it's gonna happen. Elizabeth Warren's gonna make sure of it even if she has to become President to do so. Big Grin

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 09:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Oh it's gonna happen. Elizabeth Warren's gonna make sure of it even if she has to become President to do so. Big Grin

Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, have you heard how vocal she is about the how what a huge mistake it was to repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999? So many times when I was debating the banking collapse I heard "Well I'm sure you libertarians were all in favor of deregulating the banks in 1999 and look at this disaster it created?" And I have to laugh because if you read the voting record, Democrats and Republicans were nearly universal in their call to repeal and deregulate the banks, and it was the libertarians who were opposed to.

Here's a NY Times article from 1999 which says: "The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. " And if you look at the Congressional record, the most vocal critic was actually Ron Paul who argued that, since banks are shielded from risk and the taxpayer is required to bail them out if they fail, it is playing with fire to deregulate them and let them make high risk investments. If you're a bank and you're presented with a high risk investment, and you know that if it pays off you win big, and if it fails, the government will bail you out, of course you're going to make stupid investments!

Now Elizabeth Warren is very vocal about what a huge mistake was made in 1999 when it was the Democrats and Republicans who were unanimous about deregulating the banks, and Libertarians were warning that it was a mistake.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 11:58 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
This guy has to be a troll. Certainly no one is this looney!?? (Man I wish that were true)

There is no public option with health care. We will be purchasing private insurance. I can still use my own damn money and contact accompany like 23and me or some other testing company and skip my insurance.

Insurance IS cost sharing. Doctors and people have been requesting insane and unnecessary tests for ages. This is one reason why the costs are so damn high.

Blink
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. -George S. Patton
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(12-12-2013 08:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 07:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yabut, health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). How is that any different than Obamacare?

The Swiss system is radically different from Obamacare because the Swiss were smart enough to eliminate the perverse incentive in Obamacare--something Obamacare-defenders refuse to admit is even there, and thus they haven't done anything to eliminate it. In Switzerland the 'compulsory' insurance is non-profit with one uniform rate set by the government. So the insurance companies have zero incentive to jack up the costs of health care like US companies do. The Swiss insurance companies only make a profit by selling add-on services under a voluntary free-market system, where they must compete vigorously to provide the best service at the best price. The US is the opposite where the insurance companies make a profit on the compulsory part, and thus have an invested interest in making sure health care costs are as high as they can make them since there's no free market competition.

I don't think any country except the US would pass a crony-capitalism law like that which is such a huge gift to insurance companies, requiring everybody to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation.

However that's a separate issue from the way Switzerland has succeeded in promoting policies so people save, invest. Here's a good study of the Swiss system:

[Switzerland has] no national health service and most of the population is covered by voluntary health insurance. There is also no central program to provide a minimum guaranteed income for all of the population.... Unlike the major European welfare states, the Swiss federal government defers in much greater measure to local autonomy. But in one critical respect it has achieved what the United States and European nations traditionally defined as welfare states have not: It has all but eliminated “welfare dependency,” or intergenerational poverty, and it has done this in a strikingly different manner than other developed societies.

We've been here already. It is not non-profit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(13-12-2013 09:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 09:15 AM)frankksj Wrote:  In Switzerland the 'compulsory' insurance is non-profit... The Swiss insurance companies only make a profit by selling add-on services
We've been here already. It is not non-profit.

Yes, we have been there. I've presented facts and links to support my claim. Direct from the Swiss Government itself at admin.ch:: Only those [insurance companies] which meet the conditions set out in Swiss legislation, and which are not profit-making, are authorized to handle social health insurance.. Also the NYTimes: Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans., Wikipedia: They [insurance companies] are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance [the compulsory part], but can on supplemental plans [which are not compulsory].

You have not produced even one link proving your claim that Swiss insurance companies do make a profit on the compulsory insurance. Yet, even though it contradicts the Swiss government's own website, you still keep repeating this claim. It just shows the way you feel entitled to make up your own facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 12:14 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(13-12-2013 09:50 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 09:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  We've been here already. It is not non-profit.

Yes, we have been there. I've presented facts and links to support my claim. Direct from the Swiss Government itself at admin.ch:: Only those [insurance companies] which meet the conditions set out in Swiss legislation, and which are not profit-making, are authorized to handle social health insurance.. Also the NYTimes: Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans., Wikipedia: They [insurance companies] are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance [the compulsory part], but can on supplemental plans [which are not compulsory].

You have not produced even one link proving your claim that Swiss insurance companies do make a profit on the compulsory insurance. Yet, even though it contradicts the Swiss government's own website, you still keep repeating this claim. It just shows the way you feel entitled to make up your own facts.

My apologies, I misread what you stated.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: