Free-market healthcare: Looking again at medical savings accounts …

One of the most positive “solutions” that legislators might call upon themselves to make, would be to fully implement the concept of tax-exempt “medical savings accounts” that are owned, and controlled, by individuals themselves.

The hitch (for legislators) of course is the concept of “tax-exempt”, and the idea that individuals would control their own health care accounts, and thus their own health care.

Of course, it’s really not your money. It’s the government’s money. Politicians just let you hold it for awhile.

The real “cost” of health insurance comes from the insistence of “first dollar” medical plans, that pay for all medical care, either from “dollar one”, or for very low deductibles.

If something doesn’t cost you, you are not likely to fuss too much over the price. Most people today don’t question their doctors over the cost of the treatments or tests that are being recommended – why bother? Someone else is paying.

Monopolies work for medicine but not for gas …

On another forum discussing how the concentration of oil refining and gasoline distribution in the hands of a few mega-oil companies is the cause of the current run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, I asked rhetorically – “Doesn’t competition and the duplication of services actually result in INCREASED prices?”

Another poster, who had been arguing for the imposition of a universal, national, single-payer socialized healthcare system in the United States, immediately took offense – reminding me that one of the basic tenents of capitalism is that competition and duplication lead to an increase in supply, and results in a decrease in price.

He continued to chastise me by asserting that “most people” would suggest that a monopoly (the absence of competition and duplication) leads invariably to poorer service and higher prices – as illustrated by local complaints regarding the rising price of cable TV service (a government-franchised service monopoly in our area).

Yep. Bingo.

Paying the price for malpractice claims …

Peter writes:
“Do I know any docs found guilty in “bogus” malpractice lawsuits? No. Because by definition, if they’ve been found guilty, the suit wasn’t bogus. ”

An interesting position.

Presumably then judges and juries never make errors in findings of fact, no one has ever been wrongly convicted – or wrongly held to be liable – and we can then safely then DO AWAY with those lengthy (and expensive) appeals processes for felons convicted of actions for which they have clearly been found to be guilty (or liable) by the impartial tryers of fact in the first trial.

For that matter, no one should ever be sued for civil liability in a case in which the impartial “tryers of fact” in a criminal case have already unanimously agreed that the accused was not clearly the perpetrator of the act for which he (or she) is being held to be financially liable.

John Edwards – Sharing the Wealth …

Peter writes:
“John Edwards had the audacity to charge for his services [....] Edwards and other civil attorneys provide services. They’ve found a market for their services. Some of them, the good ones, earn a healthy living at it. Bad ones struggle.”

Quite right, and I will look for this same defense of wealth and valuable services rendered to be equally applied to businesses and wealthy individuals everywhere … large corporations, Republicans, and political conservatives included.

Strangely enough, however, Peter was only recently somewhat less forgiving of local landlords who took the opportunity of a promised tax increase to implement a rate increase of their own – an action which I believe Peter referred to (perjoratively and somewhat disgustedly) as “profiteering”.

Rental property owners, most of whom locally make less collectively in a year with hundreds or even thousands of rental properties than did Mr Edwards personally in a single legal “settlement”, provide a very real, and very needed service.

The nature of taxes … funding Iraq and the war on Islamofascism

I am somewhat entertained by Standby and Frd’s efforts (in other threads) to play “gotcha” regarding the issues of fundamental common rights vs legislated entitlements, and the de facto nature of government to act as a coercive force, and thus it’s taxes and unilateral assessments against wealth and income being a de facto act of theft – and my positions in defense of actions being taken in the present global war against groups pressing a violent agenda of Islamist jihadic fascist totalitarianism, and how that gets paid for.

Inalienable rights – and the preventable scourge of affluenza …

frd writes:
“First of all your implication that some dark sordid event in my past causes me to hate rich people is simply foolish. Suffice it to say that I was able to retire and live in what some would call a very high life style in my fifties….If a murderer shoots you to death, your prior statements have led us to the point that you, not having been able to protect yourself,have forfeited your right to life. Since you do not have a right to life, has a crime been committed?”

I of course have said nothing of the kind. In fact, quite the opposite point has been made. Frd needs to read much more carefully.

Rights are inalienable. They are not “granted”. They cannot be forfeited. The fact that you shoot and kill me does not in any way imply that my right to life has been forfeited. The right still exists, even though you have infringed upon it and interferred with it.

Healthcare, taxation, and the role of government …

frd writes:
“All you do over and over is claim that you have the right to determine what the role of government is. And it is to help you achieve the protection of your property. No matter what else you say … your arguments, including the ones that go on and on and on, revolve around greed and selfishness. That’s it. I assume that you would agree that the government has the right to tax to raise an army for mutual defense i.e. protect your life and property. Disease poses just as significant threat to your life as does an outside force. What’s the difference? Or are you suggesting that the government does not have the right to tax you in order to defend American citizens and interests around the world. It seems that you are willing to take the advantages and protections that our country provides but you refuse to admit that you should pay for them, or to extend those rights to others. I agree that I do not have the right to seize your property. But we both have an obligation to each other to contribute to our mutual protection. It is the legitimate role of government to require each of us, even you, to contribute appropriately to preserve our society. You have stated that goverrnment exists to preserve our right to life. I say that extends to basic health care because disease will kill you just as effectively as a terrorist will. Oh, and I don’t have to twist your logic – you hang yourself on your own petard.”

—-

There is a personal story I’m sure, behind frd’s anger, antipathy and covetousness toward the wealth and property of others.

The rest I let stand as a rather graphic illustration of my point regarding the somewhat spectacular leaps of logic needed to arrive at a desired conclusion.

Other points call for their own thread, or the repetition of concepts and distinctions already explained in other posts here.

The thrust of frd’s argument seems to boil down to “your property is yours, until I or someone else decide that we have a better use for it”, which in this case is the provision of healthcare, albeit at the point of a gun.

Socialism and the Right to Life and Property …

frd writes:
“A colonoscopy is a proven way to prevent colon cancer, a significant threat to life. Colon cancer presents no symptoms until it becomes almost impossible to cure. To get regular colonoscopies is an effective way tp preserve life. Life is an inalienable right and it is the proper role of government to protect that right. Should the government pay for colonoscopies for peole who are not able to pay for them themselves? [...]  Some people who don’t get them will indeed have their lives shortened by colon cancer. Isn’t it the proper role of government, as you have stated, to preserve their inalienable right to life? Or, is your inalienable right to your property, i.e. taxes, more important than someone’s else’s right to life?”

Defending or protecting your right to something, is not the same thing as providing that something.Nor is government “the solution” to defending and securing rights. That is simply it’s only purpose.

It is one vehicle by which individuals may collectively act to defend their common rights.  But like any tool, it (government) can be mis-used, and instead become part of the problem.

Evil pharmaceutical profits …

Without making light of anyone’s very real pain, or the very real struggles that they may have faced with issues of depression and thoughts of suicide, I wanted to make note that at least a few people have mentioned the role that modern pharmeceuticals played in the treatment of their condition(s) – albeit the need to make some “adjustments” to those meds from time to time to make them effective and to get the desired result(s).

I was wondering – are these the same meds researched, developed, and sold by those “evil, greedy pharmeceutical companies” under our system of marketplace-driven, free-enterprise healthcare and mostly private insurers?

Yes, I realize that many of these new drugs are very expensive, especially at first, and that this puts them effectively out of reach of many of those who could possibly benefit from them.

But at least they’re out there. They DID get developed, and it wasn’t easy OR cheap. Once the breakthroughs are made, newer and less expensive versions do follow.

Countless generations before now have lived and died in misery without any understanding or hope for relief, and without those very same medications now at our disposal.

Profit is a great motivator. We couldn’t live without it.

Healthcare and the Role of Government …

Frd writes:
“there are people in this country who get sick and die because they do not have available appropriate health care. Since they have the right to life and it is the proper role of government to provide it, how do you resolve to solve that issue?”

Think that one through, and I’m sure that you can answer that one yourself.

It is not the proper role of government to “provide” life.  That is beyond it’s ability and purpose. 

The proper role of governments are to “secure and defend” the individual rights and liberties common to all people, including YOUR right to YOUR life, as well as your right to provide for the lives of others with your own wealth and resources, should you choose to do so.

Your right to something does not create an inherent obligation upon someone else to provide it, or to provide for it.  That comes under the category of “entitlements” and “privileges”, which when offered by government, ultimately depend exclusively upon the government’s coercive powers and use of force.