Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 12:21:37 PM
It sounds idyllic.

More importantly it worked.

QuoteBut I'm sure you can see the problem.

Yes. The government got involved.

QuoteThat was a long time ago.

Irrelevant.

QuoteBefore MRIs, and PET scans, before 10,000$ a day retrovirals, before chemotherapy and drug cocktails and rehabilitation.

The cost of personal healthcare has boomed, not just because of government intervention (though we agree thats certainly part of it), but because of the development of the health system and health alternatives.

Wrong! The government has stifled the free market. The free market is what establishes prices. Not the government. If the health care industry was allowed to function freely in a free market society the costs of health care will rise but stabilize to a price most can afford. You are also missing the fact that incomes have risen at the same time.

Quote60 years ago if you got cancer, you died. Cost? painkilling drugs and hospice care.

Not if you had catastrophic insurance.

QuoteNow if you get cancer your treatments run into $100,000 per month. Obviously, your average person cannot pay for that out of pocket. And there is no 'free market system' that can make that suddenly affordable to an average middle class individual.

See above.


I have noticed that you ignore any and all mention of the free market. Very telling.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 12:44:16 PM
More importantly it worked.

For many people, yes.

Quote
Wrong! The government has stifled the free market. The free market is what establishes prices. Not the government. If the health care industry was allowed to function freely in a free market society the costs of health care will rise but stabilize to a price most can afford. You are also missing the fact that incomes have risen at the same time.

Wrong?

Seriously? How exactly do you think the free-market will reduce the price of six months of chemo and radiation therapy to a price any middle or even upper middle class person can pay out of pocket? Right now thats easily half to 3/4 of a million dollars.

The prices probably will go down under a total free market system, somewhat. But they wont drop anywhere near as much as you pretend. The fact that people died of cancer 60 eyars ago was because there were no medical alternatives.

Now there are, and they are increasingly expensive. So expensive, in fact, that people cannot pay for them out of pocket.

Quote
I have noticed that you ignore any and all mention of the free market. Very telling.

I didnt ignore it at all, I simply pointed out that your assertion that the 'free market' would drop the cost of cancer therapy by 90% (which is what it would take to make it even semi-affordable for the middle class) is absurd.

If this were not patently obvious, then allow me to supply further evidence. Elective surgury and medicine is run by the 'free market system' in the US. How much do you think a single MRI costs?

Medical care is incredibly expensive now, vastly more so than it was 60 years ago, and thats ASIDE from the cost increases due to government intervention.

Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 12:53:37 PM
For many people, yes.

For the majority.

Quote

Seriously? How exactly do you think the free-market will reduce the price of six months of chemo and radiation therapy to a price any middle or even upper middle class person can pay out of pocket? Right now thats easily half to 3/4 of a million dollars.

What is wrong with you.  If you had cancer you would be covered by your catastrophic insurance. That is what is it for. TO PAY FOR YOUR CANCER.

QuoteThe prices probably will go down under a total free market system, somewhat. But they wont drop anywhere near as much as you pretend. The fact that people died of cancer 60 eyars ago was because there were no medical alternatives.

LOL!

The free market encourages medical advancement. so you are wrong again.

QuoteNow there are, and they are increasingly expensive. So expensive, in fact, that people cannot pay for them out of pocket.

In the original system their catsstrophic insurance would have paid for it.

QuoteI didnt ignore it at all, I simply pointed out that your assertion that the 'free market' would drop the cost of cancer therapy by 90% (which is what it would take to make it even semi-affordable for the middle class) is absurd.

What is absurd is you continue to ignore the fact that PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THEIR CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE WOULD HAVE COVERED IT.

You are lumping in basic treatment and services with treatment for diseases which would be covered.

QuoteMedical care is incredibly expensive now, vastly more so than it was 60 years ago, and thats ASIDE from the cost increases due to government intervention.

And I explained why but you are ignoring it for some odd reason.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
What is wrong with you.  If you had cancer you would be covered by your catastrophic insurance. That is what is it for. TO PAY FOR YOUR CANCER.

We are arguing at cross purposes. When I said 60 years ago you just died from cancer, its because there was no treatment for cancer. Insurance or no.

Now there is treatment, incredibly expensive treatment, with costs that never existed back in the day.

Quote
The free market encourages medical advancement. so you are wrong again.

Irrelevant. Yes, it does, but that has nothing to do with the issue. The free market would not reduce the price of modern expensive medical treatments and diagnostics to the point where they would be middle class affordable, they are just too expensive by their very nature.

QuoteIn the original system their catsstrophic insurance would have paid for it.[/quote[

Old style (pre-ww2) accident insurance had strict limits on what it would pay, and how much money it would expend, it was also not cheap meaning the poor and lower middle class could not afford it.

QuoteWhat is absurd is you continue to ignore the fact that PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THEIR CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE WOULD HAVE COVERED IT.

What an odd statement. Affordability wasnt an issue because of catastrophic insurance? Are you claiming catastropic insurance was unlimited? Are you claiming it was free?

QuoteYou are lumping in basic treatment and services with treatment for diseases which would be covered.

No, I am pointing out the limitations of the affordability of both in the old system.

Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 01:09:50 PM
We are arguing at cross purposes. When I said 60 years ago you just died from cancer, its because there was no treatment for cancer. Insurance or no.

Now there is treatment, incredibly expensive treatment, with costs that never existed back in the day.

The disease is irrelevant. The point is anything that would be costly to the point of financial hardship would be covered whether cancer or Smallpox or the plague or being hit by a bus. if it could bankrupt you it was covered.

QuoteIrrelevant. Yes, it does, but that has nothing to do with the issue. The free market would not reduce the price of modern expensive medical treatments and diagnostics to the point where they would be middle class affordable, they are just too expensive by their very nature.

1) Competition and demand lowers costs if no one could afford the service the service the price would have to be reduced.
2) Once again it would have been covered.

QuoteWhat an odd statement. Affordability wasnt an issue because of catastrophic insurance? Are you claiming catastropic insurance was unlimited? Are you claiming it was free?

Jesus Christ.

You paid a small premium and if you had a major accident or were diagnosed with a disease the insurance policy covered it.

QuoteNo, I am pointing out the limitations of the affordability of both in the old system.

No you are not because you don't know the difference between a check-up and chemo therapy. You don't understand competition and you can't seem to grasp the purpose of catastrophic insurance.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 01:19:30 PM
The disease is irrelevant. The point is anything that would be costly to the point of financial hardship would be covered whether cancer or Smallpox or the plague or being hit by a bus. if it could bankrupt you it was covered.

1) Competition and demand lowers costs if no one could afford the service the service the price would have to be reduced.
2) Once again it would have been covered.

Jesus Christ.

You paid a small premium and if you had a major accident or were diagnosed with a disease the insurance policy covered it.

No you are not because you don't know the difference between a check-up and chemo therapy. You don't understand competition and you can't seem to grasp the purpose of catastrophic insurance.

So far, the free market doesn't drive costs down, technology doesn't get cheaper, and innovation increases costs?

Quote from: taxed on February 19, 2014, 01:21:08 PM
So far, the free market doesn't drive costs down, technology doesn't get cheaper, and innovation increases costs?

That must be why cancer survival rates haven't increased...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 01:23:14 PM
That must be why cancer survival rates haven't increased...

It's sad how freedom and free markets scare the hell out of these people.