"We are out of money" says Obama "So we must subsidize health care"
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service
That's how HMO's started. . . :rolleyes:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, your take on health insurance is so far off the mark it makes Obama sound intelligient. Point in fact, unless you're as wealthy as Rush Limbaugh, without insurance you would recieve a death sentence the minute you had: a stroke, a heart attack, cancer or any number of other costly to treat conditions. anyone of the three I chose to list, and I can produce an exhaustive list, can run into millions of dollars to treat. That sort of cost can only be supported by individuals pooling money (the insurance model), the extremely wealthy or a single payor government program. Furthermore, insurance companies do precisely what you suggest on the part of providers - they organize doctors (and hospitals, which you neglected to mention) into networks and via those networks (using free market negotiating aproaches) push down, not raise costs. I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Nothing except (as Oakman pointed out) that's exactly how modern health insurance companies started. Eventually, because it's more profitable and more cost effective, the handling of the money side of health care gets diverted to people who know how to handle the money waaaaay better than doctors do - or particularly want to. You think doctors generally want to be responsible for chasing down people who don't pay? That they want to spend hours and hours coming up with coverage guidelines and fee schedules? So how would you prevent the consolidation of those types of smaller services into larger ones? If you're going to argue that the free market would prevent it - well, the free market allowed this to happen already! What would be different this time around?
- F
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
People have to say enough is enough, they need not just say it, but make it known with action.
So what actions have you taken? it appears that you are emulating Ilion and merely shooting your mouth off on the internet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
I certainly didn't throw my vote away on Obama like you
Or on anyone else, I suspect. You strike me as the sort who never bothers to vote, just complain.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
I certainly didn't throw my vote away on Obama like you
Or on anyone else, I suspect. You strike me as the sort who never bothers to vote, just complain.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ilíon wrote:
"Health insurance" and "free market" are not inherently inimical.
I beleive they largly are. In fact, I think insurace as a concept is largely an anti-capitalistic scam and should be treated the way all ponsi schemes are treated.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I beleive they largly are. In fact, I think insurace as a concept is largely an anti-capitalistic scam and should be treated the way all ponsi schemes are treated.
Insurance is not a Ponzi scheme. And the essence of a free market is that individuals are free to contract any and all legal goods and services with one another. The problems with insurance, as with most everything, have to do with government putting its thumb on the scales.
-
Stan, your take on health insurance is so far off the mark it makes Obama sound intelligient. Point in fact, unless you're as wealthy as Rush Limbaugh, without insurance you would recieve a death sentence the minute you had: a stroke, a heart attack, cancer or any number of other costly to treat conditions. anyone of the three I chose to list, and I can produce an exhaustive list, can run into millions of dollars to treat. That sort of cost can only be supported by individuals pooling money (the insurance model), the extremely wealthy or a single payor government program. Furthermore, insurance companies do precisely what you suggest on the part of providers - they organize doctors (and hospitals, which you neglected to mention) into networks and via those networks (using free market negotiating aproaches) push down, not raise costs. I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Stan, your take on health insurance is so far off the mark it makes Obama sound intelligient.
Wow! You're getting mean in your old age! ;)
Mike Gaskey wrote:
but it is the uninsured that by law receive unpaid treatment via emergency room care
And they probably drove to the hospital without a valid license, on roads they never paid for, after dropping their kids off at schools they never paid for, and without any money in their pocket because they sent it to their Coyote down in Tijuana so he'll bring their pregnant sister across in time to have her baby claim citizenship. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan, your take on health insurance is so far off the mark it makes Obama sound intelligient. Point in fact, unless you're as wealthy as Rush Limbaugh, without insurance you would recieve a death sentence the minute you had: a stroke, a heart attack, cancer or any number of other costly to treat conditions. anyone of the three I chose to list, and I can produce an exhaustive list, can run into millions of dollars to treat. That sort of cost can only be supported by individuals pooling money (the insurance model), the extremely wealthy or a single payor government program. Furthermore, insurance companies do precisely what you suggest on the part of providers - they organize doctors (and hospitals, which you neglected to mention) into networks and via those networks (using free market negotiating aproaches) push down, not raise costs. I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Again, yes and no. Insurance is a good thing and insurance companies supply a good and vital service. And, as has been stated, the existence of insurance is a natural (and inevitable) outcome of a free market. But, at the same time, the existence of insurance (or, at any rate, as we've been doing it since WWII) *does* lead to the price-cost spiral in medical care. It's a psychological thing; it's the same phenonenon by which the subsidy of education with public monies continuously drives up the individual's cost of purchasing education. The problem is that as we, as individuals, become increasingly insulated from directly paying the price for what we wish to purchase, we stop questioning the price asked -- which, in a free market, holds down the price asked -- because we imagine that someone else is paying it for us. Even though the good we wish to purchase is not (and cannot be) free, we perceive it as being free, and we demand more. And the price goes up. And we demand, and generally get, a government subsidy; that is, we demand that part, or all, of the price be shited, by force of law, from ourselves to someone else. And the price goes up.
-
If this interview doesn't prove the man is an affable but complete moron with good intentions but no clue as to reality then I have a bridge to sell.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
If this interview doesn't prove the man is an affable but complete moron with good intentions but no clue as to reality then I have a bridge to sell.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Nothing except (as Oakman pointed out) that's exactly how modern health insurance companies started. Eventually, because it's more profitable and more cost effective, the handling of the money side of health care gets diverted to people who know how to handle the money waaaaay better than doctors do - or particularly want to. You think doctors generally want to be responsible for chasing down people who don't pay? That they want to spend hours and hours coming up with coverage guidelines and fee schedules? So how would you prevent the consolidation of those types of smaller services into larger ones? If you're going to argue that the free market would prevent it - well, the free market allowed this to happen already! What would be different this time around?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
how modern health insurance companies started
The reason they're called health maintenance organizations is that someone had the bright idea that if routine health maintenance was paid for, people would go to the doctor before they got really sick and thus, in the long run, health care costs for everyone would go down. This kind of insurance is not the same as the old fashioned kind, which paid off only when you needed it, not when you did things to keep from needing it. Essentially, as any insurance person will tell you, this is actually a form of prepayment - or subscription as it was decribed above. It was hailed back in the 60's as the free-market wonder cure for the cost of insurance - which was going up to 100, or 200 dollars for a family, a month! It doesn't really work because 80% of all claims are made by 20% of the people who have insurance. If you're like me and go to the Dr seldom because you're too damn busy, you, or your employer, is subsidising Ilion who has nothing to do with his day except go to the Medicare clinic and bitch about his aches and pains.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
how modern health insurance companies started
The reason they're called health maintenance organizations is that someone had the bright idea that if routine health maintenance was paid for, people would go to the doctor before they got really sick and thus, in the long run, health care costs for everyone would go down. This kind of insurance is not the same as the old fashioned kind, which paid off only when you needed it, not when you did things to keep from needing it. Essentially, as any insurance person will tell you, this is actually a form of prepayment - or subscription as it was decribed above. It was hailed back in the 60's as the free-market wonder cure for the cost of insurance - which was going up to 100, or 200 dollars for a family, a month! It doesn't really work because 80% of all claims are made by 20% of the people who have insurance. If you're like me and go to the Dr seldom because you're too damn busy, you, or your employer, is subsidising Ilion who has nothing to do with his day except go to the Medicare clinic and bitch about his aches and pains.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
If you're like me and go to the Dr seldom because you're too damn busy, you, or your employer, is subsidising Ilion who has nothing to do with his day except go to the Medicare clinic and bitch about his aches and pains.
As it turns out, this statement is just more of your deliberate "stupidity." As it turns out, Ilíon is one of the few who has not been continuously subsidized by others.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Again, yes and no. Insurance is a good thing and insurance companies supply a good and vital service. And, as has been stated, the existence of insurance is a natural (and inevitable) outcome of a free market. But, at the same time, the existence of insurance (or, at any rate, as we've been doing it since WWII) *does* lead to the price-cost spiral in medical care. It's a psychological thing; it's the same phenonenon by which the subsidy of education with public monies continuously drives up the individual's cost of purchasing education. The problem is that as we, as individuals, become increasingly insulated from directly paying the price for what we wish to purchase, we stop questioning the price asked -- which, in a free market, holds down the price asked -- because we imagine that someone else is paying it for us. Even though the good we wish to purchase is not (and cannot be) free, we perceive it as being free, and we demand more. And the price goes up. And we demand, and generally get, a government subsidy; that is, we demand that part, or all, of the price be shited, by force of law, from ourselves to someone else. And the price goes up.
Ilíon wrote:
The problem is that as we, as individuals, become increasingly insulated from directly paying
dead wrong, the deductible provision of health insurance (not to be confused with an HMO plan) forces the insured to be in touch with the costs. a health savings plan does so even more effectively.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
If you're like me and go to the Dr seldom because you're too damn busy, you, or your employer, is subsidising Ilion who has nothing to do with his day except go to the Medicare clinic and bitch about his aches and pains.
As it turns out, this statement is just more of your deliberate "stupidity." As it turns out, Ilíon is one of the few who has not been continuously subsidized by others.
Ilíon wrote:
As it turns out, Ilíon is one of the few who has not been continuously subsidized by others.
Yep. I believe that like I believe you have friends.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
If this interview doesn't prove the man is an affable but complete moron with good intentions but no clue as to reality then I have a bridge to sell.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
If this interview doesn't prove the man is an affable but complete moron
Interesting, according to a few reports - quickly buried by all involved - that's pretty much what Netanyahu said on the plane as he returned to Israel
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan, your take on health insurance is so far off the mark it makes Obama sound intelligient. Point in fact, unless you're as wealthy as Rush Limbaugh, without insurance you would recieve a death sentence the minute you had: a stroke, a heart attack, cancer or any number of other costly to treat conditions. anyone of the three I chose to list, and I can produce an exhaustive list, can run into millions of dollars to treat. That sort of cost can only be supported by individuals pooling money (the insurance model), the extremely wealthy or a single payor government program. Furthermore, insurance companies do precisely what you suggest on the part of providers - they organize doctors (and hospitals, which you neglected to mention) into networks and via those networks (using free market negotiating aproaches) push down, not raise costs. I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
unless you're as wealthy as Rush Limbaugh, without insurance you would recieve a death sentence the minute you had: a stroke, a heart attack, cancer or any number of other costly to treat conditions. anyone of the three I chose to list, and I can produce an exhaustive list, can run into millions of dollars to treat.
Yeah? So? The answer to that is to take better care of yourself. No system, not insurance, nor government, not free market can cost effectively deal with the general decline in health related to aging or those who simply refuse to care for their own health by their behavior. Yes, insurance is a method of spreading the costs of the few to a larger group of people, but that simply means that those of us who do watch our health are paying for the health care of those who do not. People get sick and people die, there is nothing that can be done to prevent that and any system which assumes that goal is doomed to failure. And certainly cancer can strike anyone, and accidents can injure anyone. But the numbers in that category are not so enormous that a free markdet health care system could not deal with the few who would simply be incapable of providing for their own care. Again my own family in the 1950's was a perfect example of how effectively a free market system was able to provide care for the poor.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service
That's how HMO's started. . . :rolleyes:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
That's how HMO's started. . .
Yes they did, but I would be very curious to study the actual evolution of that trend. I am pretty sure it did not occur in a purely free market way. It occured long after government and insurance had become involved in the ssytem and therefore did not evolve naturally. I think the answer to this entire mess is so incredibly simple that it is being purposefully sabotagued. You reduce costs in any sector of the economy by reduincg the number of people involved with providing the service. The more insurance agents, the more government bureaucrats involved the more expensive it will be. When you strip the health care system down to providers and patients, with no one else involved, that is as cheap and as efficient as the process can possibly get. Absolutely no system can make it cheaper or more available to the greatest number than that. We have absolute, unequivocal proof that that system worked fine before government became involved.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I beleive they largly are. In fact, I think insurace as a concept is largely an anti-capitalistic scam and should be treated the way all ponsi schemes are treated.
Insurance is not a Ponzi scheme. And the essence of a free market is that individuals are free to contract any and all legal goods and services with one another. The problems with insurance, as with most everything, have to do with government putting its thumb on the scales.
Well, I disagree. I think insurance is a drag on capitalistic processes. It takes money out of productive use, and returns very little to the economy for the amount that it takes out. Insurance is second only to the legal profession as a drain on the overall economy - that is, people getting paid enormous amounts of money for producing no product that actually serves to grow the economy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
That's how HMO's started. . .
Yes they did, but I would be very curious to study the actual evolution of that trend. I am pretty sure it did not occur in a purely free market way. It occured long after government and insurance had become involved in the ssytem and therefore did not evolve naturally. I think the answer to this entire mess is so incredibly simple that it is being purposefully sabotagued. You reduce costs in any sector of the economy by reduincg the number of people involved with providing the service. The more insurance agents, the more government bureaucrats involved the more expensive it will be. When you strip the health care system down to providers and patients, with no one else involved, that is as cheap and as efficient as the process can possibly get. Absolutely no system can make it cheaper or more available to the greatest number than that. We have absolute, unequivocal proof that that system worked fine before government became involved.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes they did
Nice backtrack
Stan Shannon wrote:
The more insurance agents, the more government bureaucrats involved the more expensive it will be.
HMOs don't have agents, they have salesmen.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the more government bureaucrats involved the more expensive it will be
As I've already reported, Medicare has a 3% rate for administration; most private health insurance has a 20% rate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you strip the health care system down to providers and patients,
As has been pointed out to you already, insurance companies of any sort are created by entrepreneurs seeking to make a buck by betting that their clients will put up more in bets than they will have to pay out. Just like any other form of gambling. Unless you are going to pass laws making selling insurance illegal, it will happen.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Nothing except (as Oakman pointed out) that's exactly how modern health insurance companies started. Eventually, because it's more profitable and more cost effective, the handling of the money side of health care gets diverted to people who know how to handle the money waaaaay better than doctors do - or particularly want to. You think doctors generally want to be responsible for chasing down people who don't pay? That they want to spend hours and hours coming up with coverage guidelines and fee schedules? So how would you prevent the consolidation of those types of smaller services into larger ones? If you're going to argue that the free market would prevent it - well, the free market allowed this to happen already! What would be different this time around?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
So how would you prevent the consolidation of those types of smaller services into larger ones? If you're going to argue that the free market would prevent it - well, the free market allowed this to happen already! What would be different this time around?
Firstly, other industries don't seem to have a problem chasing down people who don't pay. My electric company seems to be able to do it without relying on an 'electricty insurance industry' that its customers are required to have before they get electrical service. Secondly, everything you just mentioned would be efficiently handled by easily avialable computer systems if there was any real incentive for the health care industry to invest in it. I continue to be appalled at how backwards the health care industry is in terms of using modern technology. I can't even find a doctors office that will send an appointment to me by email so that it is automatically registered in my calender. You could cut out the lions share of clinic staff simply by allowing people to schedule their own appointments online. Lastly, the issue is reducing the number of people invovled with providing health care to those who are actually health care providers. That is the only way you will ever actually reduce the cost without reducing actual quality of service provided to people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.