The Glenn Beck Phenom

Here is why we must get people paying on their own, rather than thru insurance, to lower health care costs.

You have a problem and go to see the doctor. It requires a simple test. After the test the doctor says, "I've seen this many times before and the test backs up my conclusion. I am 90% certain that what you have is 'x'. But if you want there are three more tests that will prove it to 99.8%. Do you want the tests? Your insurance will cover it."


Most people will say, "sure."

Now consider it the following way:

You have a problem and go to see the doctor. It requires a simple test. After the test the doctor says, "I've seen this many times before and the test backs up my conclusion. I am 90% certain that what you have is 'x'. But if you want there are three more tests that will prove it to 99.8%. Do you want the tests?


The first extra test is $20 and will increase the likelyhood I am right to 95%

The second extra test is $200 and will increase the likelyhood I am right to 98%.

The third test is $1,000 and will increase the likelyhood I am right to 99.9%



When someone has to pay on their own, 95% might be good enough but they have the choice of the 99.5% result. Under socialized medicine you will probably get no choice or die waiting for the MRI to open.


Just because it is health care does not make it immune to the laws of economics, supply and demand.

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is why we must get people paying on their own, rather than thru insurance, to lower health care costs.

You have a problem and go to see the doctor. It requires a simple test. After the test the doctor says, "I've seen this many times before and the test backs up my conclusion. I am 90% certain that what you have is 'x'. But if you want there are three more tests that will prove it to 99.8%. Do you want the tests? Your insurance will cover it."
Just because it is health care does not make it immune to the laws of economics, supply and demand.

If you had actually had any education in economics, you would realize what was wrong with your argument.

The problem you refer to is known as the "tragedy of the commons". When a public good is available to all without cost (as, for example, a forest on public land, lacking any kind of regulation), then rational consumers will take as much of that good as they want, or someone else will. In the case of medical testing, your assertion is that because there is no incremental cost to do so, a patient will insist on being tested and retested, even though there is little incremental benefit in the second, third, etc. test. This is not correct on several levels:

1. The patient can demand an extreme level of care, but that doesn't mean he'll get it. Medical care under "socialized medicine" would be a free good, but also a finite one. A doctor would be no more likely--or inclined--to offer a patient an expensive treatment of dubious value than he is today, because to offer that treatment would be to deny "regular" treatment to someone else. In fact, this restores equity, because a rich person can no longer command a disproportionate amount of medical resources for himself, simply because he is wealthy.

2. There is such a thing as "opportunity cost". Time spent in the doctor's office, getting a prescription filled, etc. is time that cannot be spent doing anything else. Now, there are some people out there who ENJOY going to the doctor, but the reality is that most people want to get treated and get on with their lives. The increasing opportunity cost of visits to the doctor serves as a de facto rationing device.

3. The payer--whether an insurance company, or the government--would still be auditing the bills it is presented. No such entity would give carte blanche to doctors and hospitals to bill it for--whatever. If Mr. Fonebone gets seven tests in a month for feline leukemia, the recipient of the bill is going to start asking questions.

It is famously possible to construct scenarios where a public benefit is subject to abuse and fraud, but those scenarios do NOT constitute a compelling reason to not offer that public benefit.

Quote: EvenBob

One of the biggest problems in the UK is their doctors are NOT board certified. What this means is, you can get the biggest quack who was at the bottom 5% in medical school and you'll never know it, you'll have no way of knowing. GB is terrified of board certification because they would lose half their doctors. Being a doc in GB doesn't pay well so they naturally attract the bottom feeders who couldn't get a job washing doctors cars in the US. And thats where we're headed to folks, with Obamacare. The best and the brightest will no longer go into medicine, why should they.

"The United Kingdom does not require certification from any medicine board. The need for an external body in assessment is extremely important in assuring the level of quality because it acts as a countermeasure."

Its government work, and we all know how precise and wonderful that is. Why do the best job with the best people when there is no incentive to do so. It can't go broke, you can't complain, all you can do is take what ever shoddy job they do on you and realize everybody is equally miserable. Welcome to Socialism.

The General Medical Council must not exist then. Silly me for thinking it does.

"We register doctors to practise in the UK and have the powers to either issue a warning to a doctor, remove the doctor from the register, suspend or place conditions on a doctor's registration."

Please stop telling me what the NHS is like and how it is run. I've lived there, I've worked there, I know about it. I may not know about the US's systems, and do not have a problem is people can point to me good or bad news about US health care system. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

GP's get paid well in the UK and are fit enough to wash your super doctor's cars. They go through a similar length of training as in the US, and for a while, UK doctors were being imported into the US. You can keep on with your misconceptions about the UK healthcare system, but it won't ride with me, thanks. Also, the Daily Mail is a rag. I haven't yet got a chance to read the cancer article you pointed to (I will) but as viable sources go, I'd trust National Enquirer and Hello Magazine before the Daily Mail.

Socialism is not a boogey man, and versions of it work well (Germany has left-leaning, socialist democracies at times, as has France), it's a different form of government. The People's Republic of Canada has run under the Liberals and the NDP. However, I think culturally it may not -suit- the US as well as other places. But that's a different story.

What it all will come down to is cash is king. If you have cash in CA or the UK, you can get moved to the head of the line. You can get the best doctors, the best treatment. So the rich will win, as usual, and everybody else will remember when you could get an MRI almost immediately instead of waiting 6 weeks to 4 months. And we'll all remember when the best and brightest went into medicine. But mostly we'll remember how cheap medical care was, and how there was no rationing because of lack of doctors, and how you didn't worry yourself sick over the fact that you might not get treatment before you die. Thats all coming, and if you think its not, you're a naive idiot..

Quote: AZDuffman

Socialism is proven not to work, and by your own admission lowers the quality of care for all. Wouldn't it be better, if there is so much "evil profit" to encourage as many companies as possible to offer as many competing options as possible so prices eventually fall?

Socialized medicine is better than uninsured medicine. It is also better than medicine for profit, because the profit taken by the corporations increases the costs for all and decreases the quality of care. All you have to do is look at the statistics for most of the other countries with socialized medicine (all of the western world except the United States) and you can't argue. Yes, the US might be better on a few categories, but overall, it lags behind, despite it being the most expensive in the world.

Quote: thecesspit

GP's get paid well in the UK.

GP's in the UK make an average of 100K (USD) and GP's in the US make $160K. Specialists make $150K UK, and US is $260K. But that doesn't tell the whole story. The UK residents pay higher taxes than in the US and their cost of living is higher, so doctors in the UK make even less than is apparent from smaller salaries.

Quote: boymimbo

Socialized medicine is better than uninsured medicine. It is also better than medicine for profit, because the profit taken by the corporations increases the costs for all and decreases the quality of care. All you have to do is look at the statistics for most of the other countries with socialized medicine (all of the western world except the United States) and you can't argue. Yes, the US might be better on a few categories, but overall, it lags behind, despite it being the most expensive in the world.

Medicine for profit gives us breakthrus that lower cost. Under socialized medicine there is no incentive to have a new or better procedure. I don't know about you, but I want a doctor who is motivated to be successful and wealthy working on me instead of someone with the attitude of a DMV clerk. Then again, when I buy something I only care if I think it is a fair deal wheras some people get upset if the person selling it "made out" on the deal.

BTW: I do look at statistics around the world and see wait time in weeks where the wait time in the USA is hours. Or do high-ranking government officials come to the USA for care because they can't get ESPN up there?

Yep, we have longer wait times for non-urgent care. We also get to stay in a hospital when we have our babies or have an operation, not when our insurance runs out. And yep, our rich jump down to the states to pay top dollar to jump the queue while us peasants eat our bread and water and wait for our number while we watch Sportsnet. As I said in an earlier post, our urgent and preventative care is great, while our non-urgent care sucks. It doesn't mean that the US health care system is better. And our doctors make hundreds of thousands per year. There are plenty of wealthy doctors in the United States are are quacks as there is anywhere else.

We have plenty of Universities and Medical Research centers with plenty of medical breakthroughs. The presence of not-for-profit medicine has little effect on our country's research.

Let's see:

Pablum (cured rickets)
Discovery of the T-Cell receptor (cancer treatments, transplants, fighting infection)
Modern nuclear medicine (Chalk River, cancer treatment)
Safe Stem cells
Heart surgery (cooling the heart makes it survive surgery much easier)
Insulin...

to name a few...

And where is the evidence that your costs are lowered due to medical breakthroughs? In 2000, family medical insurance cost on average $6,438. In 2009, that number is $13,375. Medical costs in the United States accounts for 17 percent of GDP at 2.6 trillion dollars. In Canada, the number is 11.9 percent of GDP or about 7,000 per family.

And take a look at your medical bankruptcy numbers.

while our non-urgent care sucks>>>

But thats rather the whole point, isn't it. 99% of all doctor visits and tests and lab work are for non urgent care. While you're waiting weeks and months for what takes hours or days in the States, something non urgent turns into urgent because it wasn't caught soon enough. The stories about this from the UK and CA are legion. Stories about how people suffer needlessly, not dying, but not living either, while the gov't diddles them around with wait after wait after wait. I guess this belongs on a gambling forum, because thats what you're doing, gambling with your life. And we should be looking forward to this? Are you joking?

Quote: EvenBob

while our non-urgent care sucks>>>

But thats rather the whole point, isn't it. 99% of all doctor visits and tests and lab work are for non urgent care. While you're waiting weeks and months for what takes hours or days in the States, something non urgent turns into urgent because it wasn't caught soon enough. The stories about this from the UK and CA are legion. Stories about how people suffer needlessly, not dying, but not living either, while the gov't diddles them around with wait after wait after wait. I guess this belongs on a gambling forum, because thats what you're doing, gambling with your life. And we should be looking forward to this? Are you joking?

It is like the old USSR, where they could not get food and basic necessities to the public across the country and the joke was the Kremlin's "solution" would be to build a high-speed train from other cities to Moscow. Meanwhile in the USA people had plenty to choose from, Kruschev wanted to see our grocery stores as he toured the USA and all despite the fact that people made "profit" at every step of the way.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is like the old USSR, where they could not get food and basic necessities to the public across the country and the joke was the Kremlin's "solution" would be to build a high-speed train from other cities to Moscow. Meanwhile in the USA people had plenty to choose from, Kruschev wanted to see our grocery stores as he toured the USA and all despite the fact that people made "profit" at every step of the way.

Yeah, it's the USSR up here.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is like the old USSR, where they could not get food and basic necessities to the public across the country and the joke was the Kremlin's "solution" would be to build a high-speed train from other cities to Moscow. Meanwhile in the USA people had plenty to choose from, Kruschev wanted to see our grocery stores as he toured the USA and all despite the fact that people made "profit" at every step of the way.

Didn't Kruschev want to go to Disneyland, which was at the time the decadent West at its most gaudy. When the US said no, he went into one of his famous tantrums.

Quote: EvenBob

Didn't Kruschev want to go to Disneyland, which was at the time the decadent West at its most gaudy. When the US said no, he went into one of his famous tantrums.

Couldn't say, I just remember on "Modern Marvels" how he wanted to see a supermarket and even then was amazed at how so many goods were available and available at so many places.

I also heard from when he saw a steel mill in Homestead, PA (Pittsburgh) he traded watches (or gave his watch for a cigr, I forget which) with an ordanary mill worker. Later he had the watch appraised and it turned out to be on the level of a Timex.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, it's the USSR up here.

You seem to miss the analogy completely.

Quote: EvenBob

GP's in the UK make an average of 100K (USD) and GP's in the US make $160K. Specialists make $150K UK, and US is $260K. But that doesn't tell the whole story. The UK residents pay higher taxes than in the US and their cost of living is higher, so doctors in the UK make even less than is apparent from smaller salaries.

100K US is a reasonable wage in anyone's book. Course, if the size of your wage tells you how good you are (it doesn't) then perhaps they should get part time jobs washing US doctor's cars.

Put it this way, I KNOW I could live off a GPs wage in the UK, very comfortably, have a house, a car and a trip to Vegas each year and all that good stuff. And I'm not adding to the overall health care burden (as someone's paying your expensive US GPs, and if it's not the tax payer, it must be the insurance payer). Wouldn't you prefer your GPs to earn less and your insurance bill to be smaller, while still delivering good care?

Socialized medicine does not stop innovation and the strive to increase standards. The difference is the form of funding. And ultimately, that's all the debate here really matters... how do you want to fund your health care? I understand EvenBob wants to pay his via insurance premiums. I want to pay via a flat rate tax. Luckily I live somewhere that does, and I'm not trading lower taxes with higher healthcare insurance premiums.

What nobody mentions is the populations of those countries where socialized medicine is sooooo successful all have tiny populations compared to the States. Canada has less people than California. Denmark has a population smaller than one of our big cities. Sweden has under 10mil. Even GB, which has 66mil, is about the same as 3 of our states, CA, NY and MI. Even with these relatively small populations, the wait times are terrible, and rationing is rampant. Imagine what it will be like with 350 million people to cover. Are they kidding?

Quote: EvenBob

What nobody mentions is the populations of those countries where socialized medicine is sooooo successful all have tiny populations compared to the States. Canada has less people than California. Denmark has a population smaller than one of our big cities. Sweden has under 10mil. Even GB, which has 66mil, is about the same as 3 of our states, CA, NY and MI. Even with these relatively small populations, the wait times are terrible, and rationing is rampant. Imagine what it will be like with 350 million people to cover. Are they kidding?

What would matter is the PER CAPITA number of doctors, hospitals, etc., which is not correlated to the size of the country.

I know you desperately, desperately want to concoct an argument showing that socialized medicine is a failure, but you're really grasping at straws here. Medical care does not get easier as a country gets smaller; it gets harder. That's because a smaller population is less likely to have a given specialist or specialized facility. Imagine if your hypothetical country had a population of 5,000. How likely would it be to have, say, a pediatric oncologist? Therefore, socialized medicine would be MORE likely to work in a large country with a good transportation infrastructure, so the fact that it does, in fact, work in a small country like Denmark or Sweden is a pretty good indicator that it would work in a large country.

And like it or not, socialized medicine IS "successful" in these countries, all of which have higher life expectancies and lower mortality rates than the U.S. That is a pretty good measure of success.

Quote: mkl654321

all of which have higher life expectancies and lower mortality rates than the U.S. That is a pretty good measure of success.

This is getting very boring. Its been shown over and over that they use different criteria in live birth records, so that skews the results in their favor. We also have a large minority population that has higher early death stats and that skews the results against us. As usual, you think comparing apples to oranges proves something.

Quote: EvenBob

This is getting very boring. Its been shown over and over that they use different criteria in live birth records, so that skews the results in their favor. We also have a large minority population that has higher early death stats and that skews the results against us. As usual, you think comparing apples to oranges proves something.

As I said, you're grasping at straws. No matter what argument anyone came up with that suggested your "gut feeling" was wrong, you would come up with some "reason" why it's wrong. However, this latest attempt is really funny. Percentage of live births has something to do with life expectancies!

I can agree with you that this is getting boring, and pointless. You are a conservative hard-head who can't even see another point of view, let alone admit to the possibility that you might be wrong. I am grateful that you and people like you don't run the country. Adios.

Quote: mkl654321

However, this latest attempt is really funny. Percentage of live births has something to do with life expectancies!

It has to do mortality rates. We count every birth as a live birth, many countries don't count it as a live birth till it leaves the hospital. This effects mortality rate. Duh.

Quote: EvenBob

This is getting very boring. Its been shown over and over that they use different criteria in live birth records, so that skews the results in their favor. We also have a large minority population that has higher early death stats and that skews the results against us. As usual, you think comparing apples to oranges proves something.

Erm, if you have a large percentage of the population that dies early, you have a problem with the population as a whole, and therefore some aspect of the healthcare system is not working, even if it such provision for that sector.

Quote: thecesspit

Erm, if you have a large percentage of the population that dies early, you have a problem with the population as a whole, and therefore some aspect of the healthcare system is not working, even if it such provision for that sector.

If you don't count the babies that die at birth or shortly after of a week later, than it looks like you have a better mortality rate than a country that counts every birth in the stats, like the US does. Example. If hospital A counts every birth, and 5 die and 5 live, thats 50%. If hospital B has 5 die and 5 live, but they only count the babies that leave alive thru the front door, they have a 100% rating. Apples and oranges.

Quote: EvenBob

If you don't count the babies that die at birth or shortly after of a week later, than it looks like you have a better mortality rate than a country that counts every birth in the stats, like the US does. Example. If hospital A counts every birth, and 5 die and 5 live, thats 50%. If hospital B has 5 die and 5 live, but they only count the babies that leave alive thru the front door, they have a 100% rating. Apples and oranges.

You stated "We also have a large minority population that has higher early death stats". I was not comparing the infant mortality rate, which as you state is two different statistical measures between the US and other countries.

Quote: EvenBob

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html

"An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.
In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent."

That is a HUGE difference. People from GB who have actually experienced USA healthcare think we've lost our minds by passing Obamacare. We have.

The stats I could find support the fact that there is a difference. However it's not as huge as you state, but is looks to be due to lack of early adoption of cancer drugs like Herceptin in the NHS.

American 5 year survival Rate : 89% (for all forms and diagnosis).
UK 5 year survival Rate : 82% (all forms and diagnosis).

I couldn't find a date on the Daily Mail article, or a source for their information, which is just another reason to be careful when reading that paper (and seriously, it has the lowest Journalistic standards in the UK, and that's saying something). The stats above come from 2006.

Note that is you divide by ethnicity in the US (the UK has divisions by income, but not race, which is interesting),

Five-year relative survival by race was: 90.2% for white women; 77.5% for black women.
I couldn't find really detailed stats in the UK< but there's a 10% gap in the UK between rich and poor.

Also there was an overall adjusted rate, based on international cancer survival standards :

US SEER-13 registry : 90.1% (2000-2002)
England : 77.8% (2000-2002)

"However, survival in the UK is far from the best and much lower than reported in the US (Figure 3.8)"

Go ahead and crow. The answer, for me at least, is that the UK needs to improve.



(I promised I'd follow up...)

Sources : http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast/survival/index.htm

>>Go ahead and crow. The answer, for me at least, is that the UK needs to improve>>

Bottom line is, where would choose to be mortally sick, if you had a choice. If you're honest, the answer is obvious.

Quote: EvenBob

>>Go ahead and crow. The answer, for me at least, is that the UK needs to improve>>

Bottom line is, where would choose to be mortally sick, if you had a choice. If you're honest, the answer is obvious.

Right now, right here or the UK.

If I had no insurance in the US, no way. If I had good insurance, the US.

Quote: thecesspit

Right now, right here or the UK.

If I had no insurance in the US, no way. If I had good insurance, the US.

Obviously I meant the US. Believe it or not most of us have insurance here and even if you don't, by law hospitals have to treat you if its an emergency.

Quote: EvenBob

Obviously I meant the US. Believe it or not most of us have insurance here and even if you don't, by law hospitals have to treat you if its an emergency.

a) I knew you meant the US and was giving you my honest answer.

b) I thought the insured rate was only 80%. I was being partly facetious, but I don't have medical insurance in the US, so obviously I'd prefer care where I've already paid into the system.

c) I was assuming non-emergency medical care required (chronic, fatal condition like cancer). I thought we'd established that it was patch up job in emergency, not a full treatment of all conditions.

d) Finally, if I did have a chronic condition, like you, I'd prefer to be near my friends and family.

e) I'd absolutely understand if we were in reversed positions you'd want the first plane out of here south of the border. And I'd not even doubt you for it one second.

Many of the uninsured in the US choose to be that way, like young people, especially college students. I never had insurance till I was 40 and now, in my late 50's, I have never used it for anything except a physical every 2 years. I'm certainly not unique. Its a fact that people in countries with 'free' healthcare abuse the crap out of it. They show up at the doctors every time they sniffle or fart crossways. Thats why is so backed up all the time.

Quote: EvenBob

Many of the uninsured in the US choose to be that way, like young people, especially college students.

Colleges now require proof of insurance as a part of the registration process. I literally have to tell the University of Minnesota my Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN member ID # and policy # before I can register for the next term in my MBA program. If I did not already have insurance, I would be forced to buy the college's negotiated coverage before I could register.

To be clear, It's been this way since I started attending the UMN as a graduate student in 2003 - so this is not Obamacare in action. I don't recall if my undergraduate institution had a similar requirement...

Quote: EvenBob

Many of the uninsured in the US choose to be that way, like young people, especially college students. I never had insurance till I was 40 and now, in my late 50's, I have never used it for anything except a physical every 2 years. I'm certainly not unique.

So, my answer remains true... I looked it up last night, 32% of Americans don't have their own private insurance (this, as you say, trends towards the younger have less insurance than the older). if I had a chronic, fatal disease, and no health insurance, I'm guessing I'd prefer to be north of the border or in the UK than living in the US.

How many of those 32% is not actually a choice, but a cold reality that health care insurance is too high a cost/ And, how many bankruptcies a year are due to health care costs EVEN among the insured?

Quote:

Its a fact that people in countries with 'free' healthcare abuse the crap out of it. They show up at the doctors every time they sniffle or fart crossways. Thats why is so backed up all the time.

Others would say that's a case of more people taking preventative steps in their healthcare. As a questin, how many trips to the doctor are you allowed with your insurance? What stops you making a trip to your doctor for a crossways fart? Is their a strict limit on usage?

Quote: EvenBob

Many of the uninsured in the US choose to be that way, like young people, especially college students. I never had insurance till I was 40 and now, in my late 50's, I have never used it for anything except a physical every 2 years. I'm certainly not unique. Its a fact that people in countries with 'free' healthcare abuse the crap out of it. They show up at the doctors every time they sniffle or fart crossways. Thats why is so backed up all the time.

Consider yourself lucky to be healthy.

The 'fact' is that US healthcare per capita is by far the most expensive and doesn't cover the underinsured. Yes, you get treated in an emergency but the only way that you can settle the bill is through bankruptcy or through government support, in which case, someone is paying the bill.

And the very expensive healthcare is thwarting real progress in America. If you choose not to insure your employees, then the employee pays a bill that is increasing by about 10 percent every year, and skyrockets if there are preexisting conditions or other factors. If the employer elects for group coverage, then they lose their competitiveness with other companies that do not provide health care or with other western countries who have nationalized their healthcare.

If US health insurance was on par in cost with other countries and offered a way to cover the uninsured that was affordable (such as a sliding scale), it would be far more superior than anywhere else because of the efficiency of the care.

And Obamacare only addresses 1/2 the issue. It takes care of the under-insured part of the equation but does nothing to control skyrocketing costs and leaves his administration (quite fairly) open to criticism.

As for patient abuse of the health care system for other countries, I don't believe that statement is true at all.

Quote: boymimbo

As for patient abuse of the health care system for other countries, I don't believe that statement is true at all.

I'm sure it's true. The people who talk about it just don't ever properly differentiate it from patient abuse of insurance in this country. When folks make that argument about universal healthcare, they always skip the part where insurance ALSO allows for unlimited trips to the Doc in almost all cases. If idiots here would stop going in every time they have a cold, costs would be much lower for the rest of us...

Quote: rdw4potus

Colleges now require proof of insurance as a part of the registration process. I literally have to tell the University of Minnesota my Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN member ID # and policy # before I can register for the next term in my MBA program. If I did not already have insurance, I would be forced to buy the college's negotiated coverage before I could register.

To be clear, It's been this way since I started attending the UMN as a graduate student in 2003 - so this is not Obamacare in action. I don't recall if my undergraduate institution had a similar requirement...

Just about any college nowadays requires that students at least pay a mandatory health care fee, which covers visits to the student health center and discounted prescriptions. However, insurance, as we understand it, is usually not mandatory if the college is large enough to have a full-service health center. Otherwise, the situation is often as you describe.

If this is the case, I think EvenBob's contention that the UK and Canada health systems are backed up due to patient abuse, as being a unique problem to social healthcare is null and void.

Quote: thecesspit

If this is the case, I think EvenBob's contention that the UK and Canada health systems are backed up due to patient abuse, as being a unique problem to social healthcare is null and void.

Here is what explodes EvenBob's contention: the simple concept of opportunity cost. If you decide to go to the doctor (in any kind of health care system), you are paying, in addition to any direct fees, the opportunity cost of the time you spend; you cannot use that time for anything else. In the U.S., the opportunity cost would be greater for the uninsured, as there would be TWO costs to pay--the cost of care itself and the cost of the time spent obtaining it. For the insured, there is only the opportunity cost of time. So you would expect a scenario where the insured were jamming and crowding out the uninsured, making it impossible for the uninsured to get health care. But this isn't the case.

EvenBob also paints a sordid picture of people crowding into doctors' offices for the slightest ailment or complaint. But once again, he ignores (or, fails to understand) that even "free" health care carries a cost--the opportunity cost mentioned above. If the condition he imagines exists--that of malingering free-riders crowding the waiting rooms, each waiting to get a hangnail treated--then the opportunity cost of going to the doctor will rise, as the waiting times get longer. Eventually some people will give up--and those will be the very people whose ailments are minor, or trivial. Thus, rising opportunity cost functions as a market force, and on the demand side, the benefit of a doctor visit is less for those who have minor ailments. So the market, as all markets, eventually reaches equilibrium (the important concept to realize is that money doesn't have to change hands for there to be a market; there only need to be finite costs and benefits to those who participate in the market).

Quote: rdw4potus

I'm sure it's true. The people who talk about it just don't ever properly differentiate it from patient abuse of insurance in this country. When folks make that argument about universal healthcare, they always skip the part where insurance ALSO allows for unlimited trips to the Doc in almost all cases. If idiots here would stop going in every time they have a cold, costs would be much lower for the rest of us...

Hmmm... I live in Canada. I've seen my doctor, oh say, twice in the past five years. My wife has been once or twice a year and had one hospital stay for appendicitis. My father, who is over 70, sees his doctor once a quarter, and he's had two heart attacks and needs a hip replacement. I've worked 8 years in healthcare on the west coast. In Canada, the issue is doctor shortages -- they go to the United States to work, and and estimated 14 percent of Canadians do not have a family doctor, forcing them to go to walk-in clinics (great option) or emergency rooms (terrible option) for minor issues. The queue system in the ERs in Canada is based on priority, so that someone with a cough and is not in dire straits waits for hours while those with more acute issues are seen more quickly, which supports the opportunity cost argument. Patient abuse does happen in Canada, but it's the same in the United States, except that the market works very well to accomodate the demand, because medical personell and the middle man insurance companies make a ton of money to provide the service.

I have only read the first post by EvenBob. I have been aware of Glenn Beck for years. Imo he is imbalanced. But, this could be due to knowing too much.
I have no doubt that governments at times act corruptly. It is my theory that Glenn Beck has seen corruption in the US government. This would explain the antics on his show.