'Should health care be a commodity?'

[berettafan]

Asked by an astute attendee at tonights debate.

Neither understood the question. Or rather neither cares to share the answer.

[jyl]

Hmm, what does that mean? Just from the quote, it's hard to understand.

Here's a dictionary definition of "commodity"

1: an economic good: as a: a product of agriculture or mining b: an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment c: a mass-produced unspecialized product
2 a: something useful or valued ; also : thing , entity b: convenience , advantage
3obsolete : quantity , lot
4: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price
5: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

Hard to say what the question is asking, isn't it?

Not a well-asked question, in my view.

[ZOA NOM]

It was another way of asking whether health care should be nationalized. The answer, of course, is no.

[jyl]

So the questioner uses the word "commodity" to imply something inferior, infers that national means inferior, and then asks, in this circuitous way, should health care be national? Half the audience probably didn't understand what was being inferred. I can see why neither man wanted to touch that, or didn't want to admit that they didn't understand it. Don't they screen these questions?

[126coupe]

Pay your own premiums, I refuse to pay the masses premiums.
Lose some weight, and refrain from going to the doctor if you have a hang nail.

[berettafan]

John right on the money.

And i believe the questions were very carefully screened. not certain though.

[Nathans_Dad]

Health care IS a commodity. I completely disagree with those that think health care (and by that I mean comprehensive health care) should be a RIGHT. By saying it is a RIGHT you are meaning every child born has an expectation that he or she should have complete healthcare throughout their life regardless of ability to pay for the cost of that healthcare. By saying healthcare is a right you are basically arguing for socialized medicine.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Minkoff

Pay your own premiums, I refuse to pay the masses premiums.
Lose some weight, and refrain from going to the doctor if you have a hang nail.

Group insurance, by its very nature, is a socializing of risk across a collection of policyholders. I'm not sure if it's better to expand the pool of policyholders (and payers of premiums) by mandate, or to maintain the status quo. What incentive is there to reduce one's health risks, or to limit the frivolous use of medical services? What are the costs we, the insured, pick up in increased taxes or policy costs for the uninsured? I really don't know what's the best approach, but I do worry about a government program that even further bankrupts our nation.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Preventive health care is cheaper than reactive health care.

[berettafan]

best thread on this subject yet!

both candidates seem to be looking for ways to feed the monster.

one candidate said healthcare is a 'right' and appears to be seeking to further socialize the PAYMENT side of the equation (via penalties for not offering insur. to empl) but not the works on the receiving end (insurance co's, etc). If you WANT socialized medicine then this doesn't go far enough. Heck it doesn't even address the problem! If you don't want socialized medicine then this concept flies in the face 'capitalism'.

Bottom line is both candidates had an opportunity to talk about tort reform and the bloated monster that is the medical insurance industry. Neither did so. Why?

[ErVikingo]

IMHO, calling it a right is a political spin to gain votes. Clearly we should all have good healthcare but that does not necesarily needs to equate to "right to have healthcare insurance".

[Jim Richards]

Please keep it non-political here, guys. There's a companion thread on the PARF if you must inject politics.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=434464

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by jyl

So the questioner uses the word "commodity" to imply something inferior, infers that national means inferior, and then asks, in this circuitous way, should health care be national? Half the audience probably didn't understand what was being inferred. I can see why neither man wanted to touch that, or didn't want to admit that they didn't understand it. Don't they screen these questions?

I disagree, commodities are bought and sold on the open market and implies the current system infers is inferior to a nationalized one because the term is used in a perjorative manner

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

It was another way of asking whether health care should be nationalized. The answer, of course, is no.

Not according to Mr Obama

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Preventive health care is cheaper than reactive health care.

100% true, impossible to enact by fiat, unless of course you are willing to give up the dangerous habits you currently enjoy, riding a motorcycle for example.

Unless of course you agree with Mr McCain that it is a responsibility, rather than a right.

Is this thread in the right venue?

[berettafan]

Crap, i honestly forgot about the PARF forum. Haven't even stepped in there since it's creation.

Mods if it needs to be moved so be it. i do sincerely apologize. i honestly don't see healthcare as a political issue but rather an economic/well being issue. but we can't discuss one without the other.


edit: i pm'd zman asking him to move this to parf. apologized for the oversight as well.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I disagree, commodities are bought and sold on the open market and implies the current system infers is inferior to a nationalized one because the term is used in a perjorative manner

Not according to Mr Obama

100% true, impossible to enact by fiat, unless of course you are willing to give up the dangerous habits you currently enjoy, riding a motorcycle for example.

Unless of course you agree with Mr McCain that it is a responsibility, rather than a right.

Is this thread in the right venue?

It's been highjacked with political discussion, so, I would hope it goes to PARF.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I disagree, commodities are bought and sold on the open market and implies the current system infers is inferior to a nationalized one because the term is used in a perjorative manner

Not according to Mr Obama

Okay; maybe i misunderstood John's post; agree that the question seemed to infer that treating healthcare as a commodity is less than desirable. The word 'commodity' now is associated with an ability to be manipulated by profiteers to the detriment of the end user.

On the second statement above i would say that the candidate in question is clearly not in favor of socialized medicine but rather socialized payment to insurance co's. As i said socialized medicine is NOT the gov't sending goombahs in black town cars to every single american's home and demanding payment to the insurance co's.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Group insurance, by its very nature, is a socializing of risk across a collection of policyholders. I'm not sure if it's better to expand the pool of policyholders (and payers of premiums) by mandate, or to maintain the status quo. What incentive is there to reduce one's health risks, or to limit the frivolous use of medical services? What are the costs we, the insured, pick up in increased taxes or policy costs for the uninsured? I really don't know what's the best approach, but I do worry about a government program that even further bankrupts our nation.

The larger the pool, the more disconnected people feel from the real costs.

Also, I can choose to enter or leave my insurers pool, and to start or stop paying premiums. I would not have that choice with a government-run program.

[Jim Richards]

Chris, I would think the gov't program would just be an extension of what they offer for gov't employees, which is pretty much just a collection of plans from various insurers...just like many pivate sector employers offer. This would just expand the pool, as you said. You're right that individuals would see/feel less of the costs since the risks are spread wider. What is the incentive to keep the costs down? That's a big concern.

[ErVikingo]

Want to decrease the cost of healthcare? 2 words; Tort Reform

On a related subject, can I deduct racing costs as healthcare?

I'm disgusted so I'm gonna go infuse some $ into the economy by burning expensive race fuel at the Daytona PCA Race.

Hum, since it provides me with relaxation it lowers my risk for heart failure and I don't have to go to a psych thus saves money in healthcare. Heck, can I deduct it as preventive health care?

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

It's been highjacked with political discussion, so, I would hope it goes to PARF.

sorry Jim, did not notice which was which, and since this was drawn directly from last nights political debate, I did not notice until after responding to a few more threads.

If you read the opening thread, this is what he refers to, and was apparently his intent, so I fail to see how it is really a hijack. I would further suggest that the originator of the thread does not have a working understanding of democratic candidate's plan

Others have made the point about patients being disconnected from actual cost tends to lead toward explosion in spending