• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Political theory and preference, etc.

"Evidence-based practice" is the terminology we use. And that's one of the main reasons why I don't want to work with insurance, because most natural treatments are not "evidence-based." It's stupid because there are PLENTY of written studies about natural treatments. The issue is the insurance and the pharmaceuticals don't get any commission on that.
OK so help me to understand how insurance gets a commission on pharmaceuticals. It would seem to me that if the treatment is better, they save money. I can understand why they would want to avoid legal hassles as would the doctors. I just don't follow the line of reasoning that they are able to get commission, when they are the responsible party for paying for the treatment.
 
Can't believe I forgot big oil. There is big food too, and that plays into this discussion; but their power is fairly weak comparatively (though still formidible).
Don't forget about the abortion, er ummm, reproductive freedom lobby
ER prices must be up.
Even if they were not, Emergency room visits have always been way more expensive than typical doctor visits, which is why they are able to stay in business with this model. It's kinda nice that they are also open 24/7.
One of our problems with the cost of health care is malpractice insurance is crazy expensive; really drives up doctor's costs. Unfortunately doctor's mistakes is also one of if not the leading cause of death. Not sure how to balance those two things. Though getting away from drugs would sure help. I could see a state run system that covers it all much like NZ and it's lack of auto insurance. Unfortunately we already know how that would go since we have something like it for vaccine damage and it's very hard to get money out of it. It functions as much as a system to tamp down dissent as actually helping victims.
Go back to the way it was before patients were able to sue their HMO, and give the practitioner immunity against wrongful death lawsuits in life or death situations, and only allow the patient's family to sue for failure to ATTEMPT to provide life saving treatment. The doctor should not refuse to provide that service when a life is on the line, but at the same time, he or she should not have the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them in a situation where the doctor can do everything possible to save the patient, and still lose him or her.
 
My primary point in my earlier post was to give the whole socialism / capitalism discussion that was simmering along a bit of a kickstart. I'm not really interested in healthcare per-se, but political theory as a whole. This was just an interesting and controversial example to use.

From a cold, logical, economic perspective, I gravitate towards libertarianism. However, at the same time, I live in a socialist country.

I recognise many problems with the socialist system, I could talk about them forever. On the other hand, I also recognise many benefits to it, and have benefited from them myself in many ways over my lifetime. Healthcare is a good example - it is incredibly comforting to know that for the vast majority of serious medical problems you may encounter in yourselves or your children, some form of decent treatment will be available, even if you are in poverty. Obviously not necessarily during a pandemic, but under normal circumstances... And it is possible to deliver it in a way that is cost-effective.

A possibly even better illustration is state highways vs toll roads. When we lived in Ireland over a decade ago, they decided to build a new motorway around Dublin, as a private-public-partnership, and install electronic toll bridges. The toll bridges themselves were going to cost millions of euros, noticeably increasing the cost of the whole venture. So motorists were going to have to pay not only for the road itself, but also for the toll bridges, their management, the profits of the private business running them etc. It was going to become a much larger financial burden on the economy simply to allow tolls to be collected. While if they had just put the cost of the motorway itself (no tollbridges) onto the existing fuel tax that funded roading, the national tax increase would have been so small as to be unnoticeable. Roading is most sensibly funded via socialist means.

We have to limit the tentacles of government control through our lives. There are serious risks in socialism. However, at the same time, it can make both practical and economic sense. So my position on this has become more nuanced over time.
 
Tollways are an interesting subject to examine. For one thing, there is NO competition among various lane PRIVATIZED providers. I can't sit back and say, "Hey, I can pay a premium price to this provider and get better service or speed on this lane over here, or I can get a cheaper/slower lane over here.Space constraints make that impractical. As such is the case, a monopoly sets the prices and I can choose to pay what they demand, or take an alternative route. Most highway maintenance and improvement, comes at the state and local level as opposed to the Federal level, and when it does come from the Federal government, it is because the highway is designated as part of the Eisenhower Interstate System. The interstate system was designated as a Defense initiative, and Conservatives are generally in support of that portion of government spending. It is the Liberals over here, that are always railing against defense spending.

One proposal we have recently implemented in the healthcare system, is providers required to inform their pricing up front. Providers don't like to do that, because they feel patients will choose price over quality, since it is difficult to measure quality on a provider to provider basis, and they have not been pressured to do so in the past, because of the fact that insurance usually takes care of everything, but that was before reasonable priced insurance, demanded taking a high deductible, as a result of the ACA. When patients don't usually see out of pocket expenses, the only institutions that cared to see what the prices charged were, was the insurance companies, and the way they handled that, was to determine which doctors are in their network. When you go to the doctor and then receive the bill in the mail, you are often left with "sticker shock" when you see the price tag, due to the high deductible. Another reason many of us choose high deduction plans, is the fact that we can pull from a tax deductible HSA, if we elect the high deduction plan. That is a legislative decision, and we have to deal with it.

Having that burden to check pricing, is not something the average consumer is accustomed to doing, when it comes to medical care. We all want the best care, but the reality is, the second best doctor has to find work to do as well, and most of us base our choice of provider, based on customer reviews. What the customer can accurately give feedback on, is how nice the staff is towards them, and how clean the facilities appear. They really are unqualified though, to assess whether the doctor provided the correct diagnosis and treatment, and all they really know, is whether the symptoms for which they were treated, have gone away.
 
Last edited:
We just had a situation today that my beautiful, crazy persuasive wife negotiated. C3 had to have a surgery on his knee and a 14 k price tag is now at 3500.

Go individual payer! Just goes to show you why medical insurance is a broken system. We have it, but act like we don’t with the providers, submit the final reduced billing ourselves and save the “insurance” co a bunch.
 
Good point @Daniel DeLuca that there is no competition on roading.

The other major problem is that such ventures tend to be public-private-partnerships, not truly private. Public and Private both have their place, and have both benefits and flaws. But public-private-partnerships manage to combine the flaws of both while eliminating all the benefits of either. Fascism, the bastard offspring of socialism getting drunk and waking up in the morning with capitalism...
 
We just had a situation today that my beautiful, crazy persuasive wife negotiated. C3 had to have a surgery on his knee and a 14 k price tag is now at 3500.

Go individual payer! Just goes to show you why medical insurance is a broken system. We have it, but act like we don’t with the providers, submit the final reduced billing ourselves and save the “insurance” co a bunch.
So the anesthetic used, was it all natural, or were chemicals involved?
 
Apologies for my clunky attempts at redirecting posts here and away from a different topic. I was in a hurry, and hadn't ever done a function like this.

But....

Carry on!
 
I would encourage any American to at least consider the Christian Healthcare Ministry cost-sharing alternative to what is inaccurately labeled health insurance. www.chministries.org
 
Well, I wouldn't buy Corona Beer, because I wouldn't buy any beer, but apparently a lot of people out there don't know how to think.

Well, more they are low information. Rye Whiskey is after all different in that it's made from rye.
 
Well, more they are low information. Rye Whiskey is after all different in that it's made from rye.
Well, I am a teetotaler, so I don't pay hardly any attention to that stuff, but C'mon now! Corona Beer??? That's just low-information on current events!
 
Back
Top