Whole Foods CEO vs. Obama's health insurance reform

To simplify it. Look at the rest of the industrialized world. They pay half as much for healthcare, and get better outcomes (a number of measures including longevity, infant mortality, etc).

Doesn't common sense say to copy what they're doing? They have single payer (or very close to it). They're also, in large part, very happy with their systems. We're not.

C'mon. Let's use some common sense and be copycats for a superior system. I have a hard time fathoming why so many people are so in love with the insurance/pharma companies. Good brainwashing and plenty of good marketing on their part is the OBVIOUS conclusion...

Cheers...

Just because some people choose to spend lots of money on health care with with no meaningful improvement in outcomes does not make the decision making or resource allocation efficient. Quite the opposite is true.
Transportation is not quite the same as life and death health care decisions and while we may never agree that there is a difference, the government/people have decided that transportation should be fair and affordable. Witness the spending on roads and bridges which in part is subsidized by a tax on gasoline. If you live in many urban areas, mass transit is subsidized. I'm not arguing that transportation should not be subsidized, but am perplexed when it is OK to increase or add new taxes for transportation, but balk at doing the same for a basic necessity (dare I say right) to health care or affordable basic insurance.
I'd like to see any numbers and studies that refute the assertion we pay almost twice as much our GDP as other industrialized nations.

People should be allowed to spend their own money however they like.

Call me when there is a proposal for a single national fire department and a single national road paving authority. I'd like to fight that too!

Ahem, your health care is already being rationed. Rationed by the insurance companies that decide what is covered and what isn't. Sometimes arbitrarily. Except, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. That means it is their responsibility, by law, to deny you claims as often as legally possible. That is rationing. That is our current system. If you don't have insurance (a bunch of our population), you're pretty much out of luck if you have serious health problems. Don't expect chemo or any live-saving measures. Go buy a lottery ticket. You're in the richest country, and the majority is being fooled.

You can also pick a different insurance company if you don't like yours. You can sue your insurance company if they don't live up to their contractual obligations. You can opt to pay more for a better plan if you don't like the one you have.

With the government as a single payer, you will not have any of these options, unless you work for the Federal Government or are a member of congress

To simplify it. Look at the rest of the industrialized world. They pay half as much for healthcare, and get better outcomes (a number of measures including longevity, infant mortality, etc).

All the agencies that rate health care effectiveness use criteria that give bonus points if it's a socialized or single payer system.

The metrics that the use are very difficult to compare between countries. The most famous one the difference about how infant death are counted. The US counts an infant's death that wasn't for term, other countries do not. That is not comparing apples to oranges.

Here is the WHO rankings down to the US:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

There's nothing suspicious about this list. Right?

Doesn't common sense say to copy what they're doing? They have single payer (or very close to it). They're also, in large part, very happy with their systems. We're not.

Actually, recent surveys have shown that Americans are happier with their health care than the British and French are.

C'mon. Let's use some common sense and be copycats for a superior system. I have a hard time fathoming why so many people are so in love with the insurance/pharma companies. Good brainwashing and plenty of good marketing on their part is the OBVIOUS conclusion...

Ah yes, it's the old Marxist false consciousness argument:

American's can't really like their health care. They've been brainwashed.

This is a convenient argument to make. If most Americans think their health care is good, then they're brainwashed. If they think it's bad, then they are right. Nimbus wins the argument for single payer either way.

Just because some people choose to spend lots of money on health care with with no meaningful improvement in outcomes does not make the decision making or resource allocation efficient. Quite the opposite is true.
Transportation is not quite the same as life and death health care decisions and while we may never agree that there is a difference, the government/people have decided that transportation should be fair and affordable. Witness the spending on roads and bridges which in part is subsidized by a tax on gasoline. If you live in many urban areas, mass transit is subsidized. I'm not arguing that transportation should not be subsidized, but am perplexed when it is OK to increase or add new taxes for transportation, but balk at doing the same for a basic necessity (dare I say right) to health care or affordable basic insurance.
I'd like to see any numbers and studies that refute the assertion we pay almost twice as much our GDP as other industrialized nations.

People should be allowed to spend their own money however they like.

Call me when there is a proposal for a single national fire department and a single national road paving authority. I'd like to fight that too!

Steve,
I don't believe that I said people should not be able to spend their money as they wish. You were the one who mentioned efficiency and the fact people choose to spend their $$$ does not equate with efficiency.
Could you please provide a link to the WHO study you mentioned, as it seems at odds with other resources I've been able to find. I'm not close minded afterall.
Thanks.

[ All the agencies that rate health care effectiveness use criteria that give bonus points if it's a socialized or single payer system.
.

Can you provide details and specific links? I'd be very interested in this and might change my opinion.
Best,
BP

Can you provide details and specific links? I'd be very interested in this and might change my opinion

Here's an US News & World Report article that talks about the infant mortality issues.

Here's a WHO press release from 2000 that briefly lists the criteria used to rank nations' health care. Two of the major criteria are "Fairness of financial contribution" and "Distribution of Financing", which are clearly factors that tilt the rankings in favor of socialized systems. This says nothing about how good the care provided by a medical system is.

The US, off course gets no credit for the free emergency room visits and other free care provided for poor people. Because the governments two big experiments in socialized healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, do not reimburse the actual costs, but force providers to pass these costs on to private payers. This of course makes the expense ratios look even more "unfair" to WHO, since the "rich" are spending yet more health care money than the "poor". A neat trick huh?

Another factor that they use is "disability- adjusted life expectancy". There is no allowance made for the relative healthfulness or unhealthfulness of the nations lifestyles, or of ethnic differences of the population. Americans, arguably leads less healthful live styles than many other countries. This would naturally lead to lower "disability- adjusted life expectancy". This has nothing to do with the quality of medical care available, yet there is not way to remove this confounding factor from the WHO rankings.

Another factor that hurts the US, is the idea that different ethnic groups have different natural life expectancies. Hypothetically let's say, that Swedes have a longer natural life expectancy than Italians. This would hurt the health care rankings of the US, because we have more Italians living here than Swedes. In fact this will always hurt America's rankings relative to homogeneous counties that have high natural life expectancies, since the US population is so diverse.

Interestingly, France is ranked number 1 in healthcare quality. In yet a few years ago, 12,000 people died because they had a heat wave in August. The lack of AC, the reluctance for health care workers to return from vacation, and the mandatory 35 hour work week all conspired to cripple the response of their centralized healthcare bureaucracy. This is not reflected in the healthcare rankings.

In England recently, I patient was left to die in an ambulance, because bringing patients into the emergency room started a timer on how long it took to treat patients. Hospitals there are ranked on this metric. So the bureaucratic solution to this, was leave patients in the ambulances. In America you can sue for such gross negligence. In England, there will be a government report. Sovereign immunity says that you can't sue governments. If we go single payer, we'll be in the same boat.

Here's the WHO's full 2008 report should you care to peruse it.

Ahem, your health care is already being rationed. Rationed by the insurance companies that decide what is covered and what isn't. Sometimes arbitrarily. Except, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. That means it is their responsibility, by law, to deny you claims as often as legally possible. That is rationing. That is our current system. If you don't have insurance (a bunch of our population), you're pretty much out of luck if you have serious health problems. Don't expect chemo or any live-saving measures. Go buy a lottery ticket. You're in the richest country, and the majority is being fooled.

You can also pick a different insurance company if you don't like yours. You can sue your insurance company if they don't live up to their contractual obligations. You can opt to pay more for a better plan if you don't like the one you have.

With the government as a single payer, you will not have any of these options, unless you work for the Federal Government or are a member of congress

Bogus arguments. They fail in so many cases. I'm sorry sir, but I cannot afford the ten thousand dollar plus premium I'd need to pay in order to get insurance in the first place. So I can't even get into the system that you want me to sue.

How can I opt for a "better plan" if I can't even afford the cheap one? My wife is also quoted in the 10K per year range. We aren't sick. We rarely see the doctor even!

The current system is a sham.

With a single payer system, at least I'd have coverage!!!

Quite a contrast!

(you totally ignore why we're paying twice as much per capita for lesser results. As a business owner, I'd immediately replace any system that was doing that!!! You just want to be able to sue? That doesn't seem like a good rationale. I thought you'd want tort reform, not more lawsuits. Do I detect hypocrisy?)

To simplify it. Look at the rest of the industrialized world. They pay half as much for healthcare, and get better outcomes (a number of measures including longevity, infant mortality, etc).

All the agencies that rate health care effectiveness use criteria that give bonus points if it's a socialized or single payer system.

The metrics that the use are very difficult to compare between countries. The most famous one the difference about how infant death are counted. The US counts an infant's death that wasn't for term, other countries do not. That is not comparing apples to oranges.

Here is the WHO rankings down to the US:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

There's nothing suspicious about this list. Right?

Doesn't common sense say to copy what they're doing? They have single payer (or very close to it). They're also, in large part, very happy with their systems. We're not.

Actually, recent surveys have shown that Americans are happier with their health care than the British and French are.

C'mon. Let's use some common sense and be copycats for a superior system. I have a hard time fathoming why so many people are so in love with the insurance/pharma companies. Good brainwashing and plenty of good marketing on their part is the OBVIOUS conclusion...

Ah yes, it's the old Marxist false consciousness argument:

American's can't really like their health care. They've been brainwashed.

This is a convenient argument to make. If most Americans think their health care is good, then they're brainwashed. If they think it's bad, then they are right. Nimbus wins the argument for single payer either way.

Steve H,

I have a SERIOUS problem when you start putting quote marks around statements I didn't make!

I did talk about brainwashing (which is obviously used in US media and marketing and gov't propaganda). But I never said "American's can't really like their health care. They've been brainwashed."

Don't use the quotation marks when you're making the statements!!! That is dishonest on your part. You can make up all the statements you want, but don't attribute them to me! WTF??

We need to be reasonable and logical here. Obviously some people in the US like their health care. Some don't. Some get screwed by insurance companies. Some go bankrupt. Some can't get insurance. Etc, etc. But if you look at the system as a whole, the more you look at it, the more you'll realize how awful it is. Should health - and inherently life and death - just be another commodity to be bought and sold? Every other industrialized country in the world thinks not. And they pay half the price. And they get better outcomes. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....scratch your head.

I'm just talking common sense here. Business owners would do so much better without massive health care costs. Our whole auto industry is near collapse, largely due to health care costs. But it affects us all. Even if your employer picks up the tab, it is money that could have been going towards a higher salary. We're all being screwed. Royally.

Steve H,

I have a SERIOUS problem when you start putting quote marks around statements I didn't make!

I did talk about brainwashing (which is obviously used in US media and marketing and gov't propaganda). But I never said "American's can't really like their health care. They've been brainwashed."

Don't use the quotation marks when you're making the statements!!! That is dishonest on your part. You can make up all the statements you want, but don't attribute them to me! WTF??

Nimbus,
I meant that as a paraphase. As you'll notice the quote stands by itself without attribution. If I'd meant it as a direct quote it would have looked like this:

I have a SERIOUS problem when you start putting quote marks around statements I didn't make!

Sorry about the confusion.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you said. It seemed like you were saying that anyone that didn't support single payer was brainwashed. Can you clarify what you meant by using the term "brainwashed"?

Bogus arguments. They fail in so many cases. I'm sorry sir, but I cannot afford the ten thousand dollar plus premium I'd need to pay in order to get insurance in the first place. So I can't even get into the system that you want me to sue.

How can I opt for a "better plan" if I can't even afford the cheap one? My wife is also quoted in the 10K per year range. We aren't sick. We rarely see the doctor even!

I have married relatives that make less than $60K per year, total. Both have bought individual policies. I think it is government meddling in the medical care market that prevents efficient price competition.

Did you know that the current system of employee provided health insurance arose as a direct result, of government salary freezes during WW2? Since employers couldn't compete with wages, they started offering benefits, with medical insurance being one of those. Government meddling is still screwing up the system, raising prices for everyone.

The current system is a sham.

With a single payer system, at least I'd have coverage!!!

Didn't you post the other day about having medical insurance, and that it didn't cover checkups?

Yes. The current systems has problems. I think most of them are cause by government market distortions. Form my POV, more government interference will not make it better. There's other ways to get to universal coverage without going to single payer. I think we first need to get the government out of the medical insurance and medical care markets, while keeping and enforcing fair rules of competition and provisioning.

We could then increase the EIC, and get rid of much of the federal crap governing Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government assistance program. Give the money directly to the working poor and let them decide how to best spend it.

(you totally ignore why we're paying twice as much per capita for lesser results. As a business owner, I'd immediately replace any system that was doing that!!! You just want to be able to sue? That doesn't seem like a good rationale. I thought you'd want tort reform, not more lawsuits. Do I detect hypocrisy?)

I haven't mentioned tort reform at all. I can confidently say, that I'm not for eliminating the right to sue. You are quick to throw the charges around aren't you?

You get what you pay for. The US has the most, and most modern, diagnostic equipment. The outcomes of actually medical procedures is the best in the world. The best diagnosis and treatment of chronic conditions. Everything is the best. Even with the government distortions, there is competition, and people generally choose the level of health care that they want. If people are voluntarily spending their own money, then they are getting the expected value in return.

As you can see, I disagree with the rankings that say all these other countries have a better health care system. A government single payer system always has it's goal of saving money. A private health care system will adapt itself to give people what they want. Sometimes that will be saving money. Sometimes it will be heroic efforts. The decision will be the patients, or the patients family. They will not have to worry about being on the wrong side of some government Bureaucrats line.

Should health - and inherently life and death - just be another commodity to be bought and sold?

I think taking money (and whole industries) from people who earned it is a moral hazard. Single payer health care would basically put every insurance company out of business. It would tell every nurse, every medical technician, every doctor, every hospital administrator exactly how much they would be paid and the most minute procedures of their jobs. Is there a better definition of slavery?

Why is my free health care worth confiscating all their property and basically putting them in bondage to serve me?

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Haha...you've just got to love Steve COMPLAINING about that horrible mandatory 35 hour work week in France. Such a horrible situation to be in. Not being able to be over-worked....woe are they....poor french.

It sure would be horrible if we got more weeks of vacation per year (like the socialist countries) or if we didn't work so many hours a week (like the socialist countries) or if we all had health insurance (like the socialist countries). Wow. What would we do with our free time? I wonder why they look so happy when I visit.....

Bogus arguments. They fail in so many cases. I'm sorry sir, but I cannot afford the ten thousand dollar plus premium I'd need to pay in order to get insurance in the first place. So I can't even get into the system that you want me to sue.

How can I opt for a "better plan" if I can't even afford the cheap one? My wife is also quoted in the 10K per year range. We aren't sick. We rarely see the doctor even!

I have married relatives that make less than $60K per year, total. Both have bought individual policies. I think it is government meddling in the medical care market that prevents efficient price competition.

Did you know that the current system of employee provided health insurance arose as a direct result, of government salary freezes during WW2? Since employers couldn't compete with wages, they started offering benefits, with medical insurance being one of those. Government meddling is still screwing up the system, raising prices for everyone.

The current system is a sham.

With a single payer system, at least I'd have coverage!!!

Didn't you post the other day about having medical insurance, and that it didn't cover checkups?

Yes. The current systems has problems. I think most of them are cause by government market distortions. Form my POV, more government interference will not make it better. There's other ways to get to universal coverage without going to single payer. I think we first need to get the government out of the medical insurance and medical care markets, while keeping and enforcing fair rules of competition and provisioning.

We could then increase the EIC, and get rid of much of the federal crap governing Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government assistance program. Give the money directly to the working poor and let them decide how to best spend it.

(you totally ignore why we're paying twice as much per capita for lesser results. As a business owner, I'd immediately replace any system that was doing that!!! You just want to be able to sue? That doesn't seem like a good rationale. I thought you'd want tort reform, not more lawsuits. Do I detect hypocrisy?)

I haven't mentioned tort reform at all. I can confidently say, that I'm not for eliminating the right to sue. You are quick to throw the charges around aren't you?

You get what you pay for. The US has the most, and most modern, diagnostic equipment. The outcomes of actually medical procedures is the best in the world. The best diagnosis and treatment of chronic conditions. Everything is the best. Even with the government distortions, there is competition, and people generally choose the level of health care that they want. If people are voluntarily spending their own money, then they are getting the expected value in return.

As you can see, I disagree with the rankings that say all these other countries have a better health care system. A government single payer system always has it's goal of saving money. A private health care system will adapt itself to give people what they want. Sometimes that will be saving money. Sometimes it will be heroic efforts. The decision will be the patients, or the patients family. They will not have to worry about being on the wrong side of some government Bureaucrats line.

No. I didn't say I had health insurance in my previous post. I don't. Take the time to read if you want to make comments. I said I couldn't afford it (I've posted that twice in this thread, saying it would cost me ten thousand plus for myself. Ten thousand plus more for my wife. Unaffordable. We did get insurance for my perfectly healthy baby, and it was an ordeal getting him seen the first time. A long drive to the east side. Met with the paper pusher barrage. The policy was too recent, so no number had been issued, so they wanted payment up front. This was after much waiting and phone calls. F them. I wasn't going to shell out full payment for a routine one month checkup when I had insurance. Then, when it came time for the shots, they weren't covered. (strange that shots aren't covered, and are VERY expensive). They go against the thousand dollar deductable. Which means you end up paying a thousand bucks plus your copays plus your premiums. For a perfectly healthy baby. Total BS. Maybe you like this system. I don't.

Our system is good at treating conditions, but we forget (and don't cover) preventative care. Don't you think it'd be smarter to prevent the cancer rather than treating it? Or preventing the clogged artery rather than treating it? And a BUNCH cheaper. And what about all the people that can't afford to buy into the system. Is it just their tough luck? Is that your opinion? Hence the low longevity, high infant mortality. Our system sucks....and it sucks for twice the cost. What a rip off. But you can get a nice quadruple bypass..yippee , just what I want.

Steve H,

I have a SERIOUS problem when you start putting quote marks around statements I didn't make!

I did talk about brainwashing (which is obviously used in US media and marketing and gov't propaganda). But I never said "American's can't really like their health care. They've been brainwashed."

Don't use the quotation marks when you're making the statements!!! That is dishonest on your part. You can make up all the statements you want, but don't attribute them to me! WTF??

Nimbus,
I meant that as a paraphase. As you'll notice the quote stands by itself without attribution. If I'd meant it as a direct quote it would have looked like this:

I have a SERIOUS problem when you start putting quote marks around statements I didn't make!

Sorry about the confusion.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you said. It seemed like you were saying that anyone that didn't support single payer was brainwashed. Can you clarify what you meant by using the term "brainwashed"?

Steve,
If you truly want to understand what I mean by brainwashed, you need some background in media and government propaganda. The best place I can point you is to read (or watch - it is now on DVD) "Manufacturing Consent." That should answer your question about what I mean about brainwashing.

(Sorry, it is a long book, but the DVD is only about four hours. It isn't a simple topic. But if you truly want to understand then...........)