carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/31/85)
Cliff Matthews writes: > I consistently "scream" at my "representatives" when they try to pass > motorcycle helmet or auto seatbelt laws. Not only are they taking away > freedom, but they are encouraging people to be dependent on the state > for guidance away from safe practices.... As I understand it, the purpose of seat-belt laws is not Big Brotherism but to reduce medical costs for third parties (insurers and taxpayers). Richard Carnes
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/31/85)
People in the U.S. have the silliest ideas of what freedom is all about.
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/01/85)
> Cliff Matthews writes: > > I consistently "scream" at my "representatives" when they try to pass > > motorcycle helmet or auto seatbelt laws. Not only are they taking away > > freedom, but they are encouraging people to be dependent on the state > > for guidance away from safe practices.... > As I understand it, the purpose of seat-belt laws is not Big Brotherism but > to reduce medical costs for third parties (insurers and taxpayers). > > Richard Carnes Great! Force people to pay for other people's medical expenses and then use that as an excuse to force more restrictions on everybody. Now if medical or insurance expenses were really the excuse, wouldn't there be an effort to prohibit smoking? How many costly cancer battles are subsidized by the tax- payers when people decide to chain smoke. Why should I subsidize such an obviously harmful practice much less more subtle things like illness due to a poor diet, etc? BTW, if an insurance company wants to give discount premiums for wearing a seatbelt there should be no regulations preventing it. It would be easy to "enforce" ... if someone claimed he was a seatbelt wearer and he died in a crash w/o a seatbelt on he forfeits his claim. Want to reduce medical costs for everybody? Get rid of medicare and deregulate the medical industry. --Cliff
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/08/85)
> > Now if medical > or insurance expenses were really the excuse, wouldn't there be an effort to > prohibit smoking? There IS an effort to prohibit smoking. It runs into opposition by: a) smokers, who claim that their "freedoms" would be abridged b) tobacco farmers, who don't want to lose those profitable subsidies. > Want to reduce medical costs for everybody? > Get rid of medicare and deregulate the medical industry. > --Cliff The medical industry is *NOT* regulated. A doctor sets fees freely. Fees are regulated by "the free market", i.e. if a doctor is too expensive you call someone else. Medicare has put ceilings on reimbursement in certain areas of health care, which have so far had little effect. I am appalled at your casual attitude concerning medicare. Let's get rid of it and the hell with the millions of people who lead active, productive lives because of it. Nice, Nice. I say let's get rid of *you*, so as to control the increasing nonsense in this world. Marcel
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/08/85)
>From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP > >Want to reduce medical costs for everybody? >Get rid of medicare and deregulate the medical industry. Sure, it's worked so well, let's have more! Medicine in the U.S. is less regulated than in just about any other industrialized western country. The result is predictable: two tiers of service, one for those who can pay and another for those who can't; one of the largest shares of GDP going to medical payments in the world; and overall an unimpressive set of health statistics. Mike Kelly
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/10/85)
> > >From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP > > > >Want to reduce medical costs for everybody? > >Get rid of medicare and deregulate the medical industry. > > Sure, it's worked so well, let's have more! Medicine in the U.S. is > less regulated than in just about any other industrialized western > country. The result is predictable: two tiers of service, one for > those who can pay and another for those who can't; one of the largest > shares of GDP going to medical payments in the world; and overall an > unimpressive set of health statistics. > > Mike Kelly Whether it is "less regulated" than others or not, there is still so much regulation that it is not surprising that the costs are enormous. It is not uncommon to hear of people who want to build hospitals that are not allowed, because they can't show proof that they are needed. I can not decide that I need a particular drug, write a prescription and go purchase it. As long as the number of hospitals is kept down and the number of people allowed to perform the most rudimentary medicine is likewise restricted, the cost will remain be enourmous. BTW, when you say we are less regulated do you mean the qualifications of doctors are lower or do you mean that Uncle Sam doesn't directly set the rates that our medicine people can charge? --Cliff
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/11/85)
> > Now if medical > > or insurance expenses were really the excuse, wouldn't there be an effort to > > prohibit smoking? > > There IS an effort to prohibit smoking. It runs into opposition by: > a) smokers, who claim that their "freedoms" would be abridged > b) tobacco farmers, who don't want to lose those profitable subsidies. Great. Now time to ban sunbathing, motorcycle riding, skiing, Who concerts, arm wrestling... > > Want to reduce medical costs for everybody? > > Get rid of medicare and deregulate the medical industry. > > --Cliff > > The medical industry is *NOT* regulated. A doctor sets fees freely. Can you go down to the local pharmacy and say I want some tetracycline. > Fees are regulated by "the free market", i.e. if a doctor is too expensive > you call someone else. You call the wrong person and the AMA finds out about it and the person you call can get slapped in jail. > Medicare has put ceilings on reimbursement > in certain areas of health care, which have so far had little effect. The same can not be said about the money that has been paid because of medicare. When hospitals know they can get X dollars out of the government for a service as long as they make sure they charge the same X dollars to people who are not using govt. funds, do you think there is much incentive to keep X low? > I am appalled at your casual attitude concerning medicare. Let's get rid > of it and the hell with the millions of people who lead active, productive > lives because of it. Great, make the taxpayers pay for all the lung operations and cancer treatment for all the people smoking their way to an early grave. With the govt. picking up the medical tab how much control should there be of people's life to make sure they don't do unhealthy things? Are we going to mandate people stay at a particular weight for a particular height? > Nice, Nice. I say let's get rid of *you*, so as > to control the increasing nonsense in this world. Not an uncommon proposal from collectivists. Don't like another person's political philosophy? Get rid of him. No problem... > Marcel
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/12/85)
> > >From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP > > > > > >Want to reduce medical costs for everybody? > > >Get rid of medicare and deregulate the medical industry. > > > > Sure, it's worked so well, let's have more! Medicine in the U.S. is > > less regulated than in just about any other industrialized western > > country. The result is predictable: two tiers of service, one for > > those who can pay and another for those who can't; > > > > Mike Kelly > > Whether it is "less regulated" than others or not, there is still so much > regulation that it is not surprising that the costs are enormous. It is > not uncommon to hear of people who want to build hospitals that are not > allowed, because they can't show proof that they are needed. I can not > decide that I need a particular drug, write a prescription and go purchase > it. As long as the number of hospitals is kept down and the number of > people allowed to perform the most rudimentary medicine is likewise > restricted, the cost will remain be enourmous. BTW, when you say we are > less regulated do you mean the qualifications of doctors are lower or > do you mean that Uncle Sam doesn't directly set the rates that our medicine > people can charge? > --Cliff Flat nonsense; in *some* sections of the country (i.e. where there are people with lotsa bucks), hospital beds go empty for lack of patients. In some *other* sections of the country (e.g. the South Bronx), there are not enough hospital beds to go around. If you can decide what drug to use, why do we need doctors at all?? That's it, deregulate all the way; get rid of doctors, let everyone practice medicine. One condition, though: YOU, nor anyone else, CANNOT sue the drug manufacturer, your insurance company, the government or anyone else, when the drug you take turns out to make your kids be born with no brain. Finally, a large brake to the increase in health enterprises is the threat of malpractice suits. When a doctor has to pay $60,000 a year in malpractice insurance, no wonder people are not rushing into the health field. This is not due to government regulation, but to the litigious nature of US society. Marcel.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/13/85)
> David Albert ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (albert@harvard.ARPA) > Sure, maybe the insurance company could refuse to pay if > you were found dead in your car with your seatbelt off. > But could they prove you hadn't taken it off after the > accident? And if it were on, could you prove that you > hadn't put it on at the last minute -- thus removing your > hands from the wheel and contributing to the accident -- > to avoid losing your insurance? From what I have seen, the difference between wearing a seatbelt and not wearing a seatbelt in an auto accident is unmistakable. In the latter case, the driver/passenger usually ends up dead or permanently brain damaged. As for putting it on at the last minute: there just isn't time. Here is a refined proposal for insurance penalities for not wearing seatbelts: Let's say you get a 10% discount on your medical premiums if you wear a seatbelt. If it is determined that you are not wearing your seatbelt, your medical coverage would be reduced to the NON-discounted premiums would buy; that is, you would be paying a lower premium, but getting lower coverage as well. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (02/19/85)
>From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) >Newsgroups: net.politics >Message-ID: <241@mhuxr.UUCP> >Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 23:14:38 GMT >Article-I.D.: mhuxr.241 > >> >> Now if medical or >> insurance expenses were really the excuse, wouldn't there be an effort to >> prohibit smoking? > >There IS an effort to prohibit smoking. It runs into opposition by: >a) smokers, who claim that their "freedoms" would be abridged >b) tobacco farmers, who don't want to lose those profitable subsidies. > Both groups are in the right.I don't smoke but I don't object to other people doing it (Though I would point out to them that it is not a good idea).Similally the farmers have a right to grow whatever they like.The same applys to any other drug or anything else "Hey fat causes heart failure which puts up medical costs,so why dont we make fast food illegal" :-) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the beginning was a flame ...... " Paul Kantner. .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc [ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]