Comments on: HUCKABEE ON HEALTH CARE

By: John Michaels

John Michaels — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:17:57 +0000

On one hand, he supports Christianity while on the other hand he promotes socialized medicine. Sound like an “old time” Democrat.

By: disinter

disinter — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:33:03 +0000

By: drmatt

drmatt — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:10:27 +0000

Yes of course you are missing the basic premise again. read yoiur response, I, I, I, I. whereas we are talking about “we” the people. and if “we” the people decided all those things should be provided through the government, and “we” the people were willing to pay for it, then “we” the people should have it.
Our founding fathers gave the public a great deal of credit in deciding what they do and dont need, i.e a car in every garage? maybe we should all get a garage first, in anycase the population with it’s collective intelligence would see that as wasteful and low on the priority list (I hope). Try not to substitue what you want, or think is right for the will of the “we” the people, it is important.

By: Rich

Rich — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:40:21 +0000

“The government “is�? the people, in which case if the people want health care it is thier (our) right and entitlement”

Great!

I want food, expensive food, and I want you all to pay for it. We should all have a car. The government should pay for it. Lets vote on it! A car in every garage! I want one that costs more than I make in 2 or 3 years, OK! We should all get that.

I want all of my utilities paid for. In fact, I am going to quit my job, since I am entitled to everything I need and the gov’t is going to pay for it. Yea!

I don’t think you could argue that those are not things that all people want, and yet the gov’t is not providing them.

By: drmatt

drmatt — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:22:25 +0000

You have missed my premise, which is that your comparison is POOR, it is nothing like buying a television. As far as credit cards and life insurance goes, once you use them the cost doesn’t go up, not true with health insurance,the more you need it the more you cost.
As far as your Rant goes, you forget one very important premise. The government “is” the people, in which case if the people want health care it is thier (our) right and entitlement, that is a purpose of a government for the people by the people, this is not a government for business by business.
In regards to mortgages, take a look at what happened, so called professionals inflated the market value of peoples houses so that they could loan money in the name of profit, if we dont have some sort of oversight this is what happens, because business is so well represented the people are taken advantage of. I have no issues with free market but you cant let them do what they want. Mortgage company told me my house was worth 250K, but when the chips where down and I had to sell, two year on the market and the best offer I got was 180K!!!! not even close, who benefited? So go ahead and put your life and health in the hands of people who are in it for profit, ant let me know how it is going when you are diagnosed with a disease that is no fault of yours how it is going? see how the free market works for you when you get RA, MS, ALS, stroke, heart attack, you know when you actually need the coverage. Then you can talk.

By: Rich

Rich — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:24:05 +0000

“and your society is so vastly unequal that there cannot be universally affordable products offering equal care.”

I never suggested that. If there were universally affordable products and universally equal care, there would be no competition. Sorry, your counter argument ignores my premise.

And lower component prices and volume production aren’t the only story. If there was only one manufacturer of even the cheapest of components (to produce), the prices would be much higher.

As for asking questions about gender, employment, etc., there are markets other than health insurance that do this, such as the credit market, and life insurance. Life insurance companies compete on product variation and price, taking all of those things into account. In order to see this, you must get over the notion that health care is an entitlement.

[BEGIN RANT]
Unfortunately in this country, we are becoming increasingly “entitled,” with a sense that everything should be provided by the government, or if not priovided for, than “failure,” in whatever form, should be insured against by Big Brother. You are not allowed to make poor financial decisions on your mortgage, the government will bail you out. You cannot make poor health decisions, the government will protect you from yourself (see cigarettes and trans-fats). This is just another symptom of cradle-to-grave mentality, including gov’t bail outs against bad mortgages, and the idea that any “bad” thing that might happen is a cause to search for the responsible party and an attorney.

People should have the opportunity to select their own coverage, not be at the whim of an employer, if they happen to have one. Employers (particularly small business) should not be held hostage by insurance companies with whom they are unable to negotiate because of an intertia against change. While Huckabee’s proposals may seem vague, any market-based approach could be no less vague. The market cannot be controlled, and still be a “free market.”

[END RANT]

I really have no expectation of convincing Marc, or drmatt, or Indra, FWIW.

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:53:37 +0000

‘Which is precisely why I can get a Plasma television for under $900, which used to cost over $6000.’

No - the main driver in consumer electronics is volume production and lower component prices as the technology is developed. And there can never be the kind of perfect health insurance market you envisage as people are not as simple as TVs and your society is so vastly unequal that there cannot be universally affordable products offering equal care.

By: drmatt

drmatt — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:51:14 +0000

Sorry Rich, cant compare to plasma TV, the plasma TV people dont care what you do with it, the health insurance people care what you do with your health and will adjust the price according to how they risk stratify you, in which case you will have many different prices for the same insurance, not like typical economics when subjected to competition where the prices come into close proximity to each other for the same quality product. The TV sales man doesnt ask your age, family history, social habits, etc. then price your tv accordingly….poor comparison, even you can see that.
Indra, you are right, as long as we continue to allow health care to be a “for profit” endeavor, profits will matter and people wont, and when the come head to head the answer will be f**k people there is money to be made.

By: Indra

Indra — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:19:04 +0000

Whether insurance policies are cheap or expensive, the fact remains that health care in America is a business. Insurance companies are interested only in making money and the health of people is not a concern for them. Deregulation or not, insurance companies will continue to take our money and then deny medical care and services.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:12:50 +0000

I agree with Catron. As it stands, competition in healthcare insurance market is limited because the consumers of health care services are shielded from the costs. It is just too difficult for a company to move 10, 100, or 1000 people all to a new plan. But if the individuals made their choices individually, there would be more competition.

If a healthcare consumer could shop for insurance the way they buy other products and services, then prices would behave as they do for those products and services.
Which is precisely why I can get a Plasma television for under $900, which used to cost over $6000. Competition forced retailers of these products to lower prices, for fear of losing business to another provider, at a lower price.