tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8125125.post1323119845496079934..comments2023-09-28T23:22:25.084+11:00Comments on SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8125125.post-65403041204904685142009-09-28T05:34:11.321+11:302009-09-28T05:34:11.321+11:30I had a separate thought that is sobering:
In who...I had a separate thought that is sobering:<br /><br />In whose interest is it to fix the uninsured person fiasco?<br /><br />The critical fact is that everybody DOES have catastrophic insurance, since emergency rooms don't turn dying people away.<br /><br />The questions are thus (1) WHAT IF THEY DID TURN PEOPLE AWAY?, and (2) WHAT IF EVERYBODY HAD FULL COVERAGE (not just catastrophic)?<br /><br />If our culture hardened and people dying on the street outside of hospitals was seen as a pathetic comeuppance for being born stupid and thus unworthy of support, then the absolute level of CASH FLOW going through both hospitals and insurance companies would plummet to a fraction of what it is now.<br /><br />Less money flowing through a system means less profit. Insurance companies, especially, must be very happy to have cost be a MULTIPLE of what the actual cost per INSURED patient really is. It's as if they are living in the inflated future. Imagine taking your savings back 100 years. You'd be very rich!<br /><br />Finally, does government want preventive medicine welfare while leaving the rest of the system alone? That's the cheapest option, meaning the least cash flow into and out of government, so the answer is a resounding NO.<br /><br />Only the poor really want ONLY insurance welfare without medical socialism overall. The well off should want it too, since preventive maintenance would reduce their insurance greatly, but not under a government system that is politically activist and bureaucratic.<br /><br />Who would have to turn into saints to avoid government intervention into what really is a problem? Insurance companies! They would have to provide income-based coverage to an extent that EVERYBODY has general care coverage and thus gets regular check ups (which would be a requirement as it is today, to get lower rates), and thus essentially free coverage to the poor, thus vastly reducing resource-intensive emergency care. Remember, they are ALREADY covering the poor with catastrophic coverage.<br /><br />That, it seems to me is the "free market" solution. And that outcome, it seems to me, is utter fantasy.<br /><br />In other words, insurance companies would have to start acting as central planners, meaning as governments!<br /><br />I have not heard other enlightening, "wow I hadn't thought of that!" solutions based on unregulated trade between irrational participants, nor for coldly rational ones either.<br /><br />Writing this type of essay feels very sophomoric. That indicates to me that this system is quite complex and centers very much on what there are only quite soft theories for in what ends up being economics and of sociology. It's also a pretty boring topic compared to other technical issues like nutrition or climatology. Why? Because there's no BIOLOGY in the debate, meaning no hard science to mull over and righteously stand upon in the great fight to find scientific truth in a world full of money-grubbing hucksters.<br /><br />-=NikFromNYC=-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com