basic health care vs. insurance...why the confusion.

This is in response to LJ (as she seems to be known) on another thread to keep that thread on topic. This is not a bash on her or anything of the like, in fact I assume she knows this and likely just reacted quickly with her views on the desire for people to have care when the concept was on the perifiery of another discussion because she is particuarly passionate about that topic.

But we all know that health insurance is not health care...and that the insurance simply covers the financial risks associated with not having the funds to pay for a health service you desire and/or need. We sometimes slip between the two, but more than ever they should not be confused. We all also know that you will get different service and pay a different price for such services, resulting from the excess costs of the system or those taking advantage of it as recent posts and the media have widely reported. It is also well known that other industrialized countries with universal care (NOT INSURANCE) have longer life spans and something like 50% of the costs that we do per capita. It is pretty well established that there a many American myths about how bad it can be and of course it sounds bad when you talk of individual waiting for an appointment horror stories that I am sure do happen in these countries occasionally, but not on average.

I want to keep my money, I want you to pay your way, but IF THE GOAL IS REDUCED COSTS FOR ALL AND FREEING UP OUR ECONOMY FOR PRODUCTIVE THINGS...the few horror stories do not compare to longer life spans and 50% reduction in costs. Most Americans hate their health care AND insurance systems, feel screwed at the doctors and it seems to me that most people from foreign countries with universal systems are concerned if they step on US soil because a med emergency could bankrupt them and get them stuck in our system. We all watched SICKO and alternatively heard about people dieing of cancer while waiting to see a doc in Canada. Not my point.

My point is

That if your goal is UNIVERSAL CARE, it seems clear to me that what ever we accept in the interim will have some level of traction, will have to run some course, work to get out of some rut....and just might work, though we know deep down since what we want is care and not simply financial risk mitigation with higher ongoing costs, that it likely will not work...or working will be redefined as we see fit, for the sake of our internet threads and bs.

So if this Insurance Mandate style system runs its course, we know costs go up...cause more people are covered in a system where it will be what we currently pay as a society as a whole to insure what ever % we do now PLUS the same per capita costs for those that were previously not insured MINUS the increased efficiency of adding people (but this is not relevant because we hit the economy of scale long ago) PLUS the increased costs associated with being in a captured market, no ability to chose either variations and thus costs for the exact same thing today will likely cost more cause you gotta buy it. I am in many different businesses, this rule is true, if you can charge more, you will and if your customer has to buy a wiget (A,B or C) all three options will work their way up in price, even given fixed inputs and costs.

But I also assume that part of the goal is not having the new system be an excess burden on an already strapped people....the goal includes the reduced costs (50%) that all the other nations got withOUT a big set of private money making firms acting as middlemen on our health care transactions for the services we want or have to have.

If cost is no issue, there would be little to no debate, just do it, spend it and get the health care...just about everyone in every party short of christian scientists in good health wants health care when they need it. It is the cost we are really debating.

So if we go forward with the Mandate and we get suck in the rut for months, years, decades....that is the exact same amount of time you will wait for the cost reductions and the Universal Care to be considered again. So yes, everyone will have some level of care (or most) with this coming system, which none of us really understand yet, but we will go even more in debt personally and professionally to do it, increased costs for what others have already figured out how to do at half price.

So I really argue that if we accept the Universal Care part (WHICH I AM NOT SAYING IS MY VIEW, I AM DEBATING CONCEPTS AND CONSEQUENCES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD HAPPEN GIVEN DIFFERENT ACTIONS AND SPECIFICALLY NOT TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO TRASH EACH OTHER ON PATRIOTISM, POLITICS or TRYING TO AVOID TALKING BY BRINGING UP SPELLLLING OF PEOPLE I DONT AGREE WITH)....those that want the best of that (the whole ball of wax at 50% off with longer life spans like other industrialized nations with universal care), should NOT WANT THE MANDATE....

This includes you LJ, what do you think, why do you want the Mandate if it could maintain high per person costs, or am I missing something that is included that is intended to drive costs down while keeping services the same per person or increasing them or their effect (longer life spans, again).

Please do not attack me for wanting to debate without sh** talking people. I really don't actually remember which one of you is on which side of the mutual witch hunt, I just read recent comments within topics and take them on their merit. Anyone who is married has had the discussion that they are making a point now and do not want to be punished again for something that was done in the past and already hashed out, resolved or not. Read my posts one day and you may call be a "bagger" and then the next you may call me a "bleeding heart liberal" and in either case I could be expressing my opinion and/or expressing an inconsistancy or unintended consequence of those that I disagree with ("do you realize how you are cutting your foot off to spite your face" for example actually this example).

It also seems to me that if something is a right, I should not have to pay someone to cover the financial risk associated with paying for my "right", that just seems convoluted to me, even if you want everyone to have health care...is it at any cost...at the cost of starting to have to pay for rights?

Can the typical sh** slingers (again I don't even remember who you are or your name, just that there is a lot of sh** slinging goin' on.) not dig in their heels or bring up what she or he said 30 thread ago and actually debate this topic in such a way that this thread stands on it's own, can be read by an outside party without other threads considered? Debate a topic.

I know I am not following any official rules of debate, just looking for some back and forth with logic and supported assertions, even if long winded.

You did not have to real all this crap, you chose to.

Thanks again for playing if you do.

It's late.

Cliff Notes version?

YoNotes 2011.

LJ accidentally fell off topic in another thread, so I started a new one on that slip so the original thread could stay on course, as this is an important issue, perhaps the core one.

The health care mandate will slow the progression of universal coverage if that is your goal because we cannot have both. The health care mandate does not come with the 50% reduction in costs and increased life spans that universal coverage states report. I do not think coverage is the real issue or only or even primary driver. Reducing costs after getting those that do not have basic care some care is.

Bottom line, those that want universal health care and reduced and already shown to be possible costs and models should not want this mandate, it gets in the way.

Essentially I do not understand why Democrats on average want a mandate if they like taking care of people and I explain why they should not in excessive detail with much repetition with requests to actually debate my points vs. calling me a teabagger or liberal.

I assure you it is later where I am.

yoyo, I can't really tell what you are saying in your long post. Yes, there is a difference and most plans now are pre-paid health care plans not insurance. Between state and now federal regulations and mandates, it is going to be impossible to buy an insurance plan anymore. The gov't will define "essential benefits and coverage" for you.