Health Care 10.06.07 And The Pandora Prescription

[Jerome Scuggs]

When I'm standing in a hospital and I refuse to help someone who has been stabbed because my purely capitalist society says that unless he can help himself by affording it or having health insurance then there's something wrong with that scenario.

Oh, and that sort of thinking is a product of your "system". There is not a law that says you can't help someone if they can't afford it. The doctor, acting as businessman and not regulator, has the freedom of choice, and can treat the patient. Then the businessman can negotiate a deal - since there are no laws saying how much he should charge, he could do it for free. Presidential candidate Ron Paul used to have a clinic where he did, in fact, treat patients and performed surgeries for free, if the patient was poor - how did he do it? Because he had profits from the wealthy patients he saw. (He refused to accept any government-based insurance)

[Epinephrine]

Jermone all I can say is this. With the current US system, 1/6 of your country doesn't have any health insurance. They can still thankfully go to ERs for emergancies. Under your system of pure capitalism, even these 1/6 won't get that. They will be left to die like the proletariat that they are.

Secondly, without any regulation, as the companies are ALREADY doing a GREAT job denying people healthcare, then even more people will be denied. As you said, anyone with problems like HIV, heart problems, genetic risk factors for any serious disease or cancer and so on also won't get any insurance.

Thirdly, since the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be less healthy (for a ton of reasons, including the fact that if you are unhealthy you can't get a great job, or if you are poor you can't afford to have free time to exercise and eat anything more nutritious than McDonalds), this means that anyone who's any poor is done for.

For these people, it costs more to treat them as a group, than companies could possibly ever charge them for insurance they could afford. Since everyone else isn't paying for it... they're toast.

Fourthly, since public immunization programs are also generally government subsidized, these would be eliminated too, because we're completely removing government from the equation.

The fundamental difference is this. Jerome, you don't care if 1/6-1/4 of your country has absolutely no healthcare, and that they will basically die from anything that's remotely serious. You don't care that people with treatable diseases who could be relatively cheaply treated, would clog up your jails at much higher cost both economically and socially (i.e. drug addiction, schizophrenia, alcohol abuse).

Diseases that 1000 years ago killed people but can easily be treated now, will make a comeback, and people will die by the millions for no good reason other than you think it's a great idea. You can keep saying that 'but under a real capitalist system these people will be covered' all you want, but we BOTH know that's not true. They are being denied now with all the regulation, they will be denied even more without it.

Medical research is absolutely nothing like buying products or buying resources, and normal capitalistic rules I would argue do not apply in the same way. Applying them is both heartless and going back 200 years in terms of everything from equality to human rights.

[Epinephrine]

Oh, and that sort of thinking is a product of your "system". There is not a law that says you can't help someone if they can't afford it. The doctor, acting as businessman and not regulator, has the freedom of choice, and can treat the patient. Then the businessman can negotiate a deal - since there are no laws saying how much he should charge, he could do it for free. Presidential candidate Ron Paul used to have a clinic where he did, in fact, treat patients and performed surgeries for free, if the patient was poor - how did he do it? Because he had profits from the wealthy patients he saw. (He refused to accept any government-based insurance)

Be serious man. If someone comes to the hospital without insurance even NOW, they are denied treatment. It's that easy. The hospital will refuse to pay for it. I have worked with >15 doctors who worked extensively in the US medical system, and they all say that was standard practice (and part of the reason why they returned to Canada). If they treated, they could get fired from the hospital or pay for it all out of their own pockets. And yes, treating a gunshot victim costs a LOT of money even for a doctor.

It's all nice that Ron Paul had his own private hospital with MRIs, operating rooms, surgeons and the latest equipment ready to treat anyone, but we both know that relying purely on charity for the 1/6 of the population that doesn't have any healthcare is laughable at best.

[Cops]

Jerome I watched the video you sent me and Milton Friedman says that "the people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks, I've often said that minimum wage is the biggest anti negro law"

Apparently I'm a 'do gooder' who believes that minimum wage helps out poor people but in fact I'm ensuring that these poor people who's skills do not justify a standard level of wage earns a standard wage (Basically it's charity?). Friedman says that by providing these people with a chance at a standard of living wage I'm actually hurting them because if business has to pay them a certain wage then no one will hire them.

In Canada there's an excess of jobs, if I wanted a factory job I could easily get it, in fact I could probably get 10. All these jobs pay at least $10 an hour which allow all people with less than a high school diploma to achieve a basic standard of living. I see the direct benefits for upping the minimum wage. If you think getting one of these jobs is hard all you have to do is call a number and they tell you to show up with a pair of safety boots and you're hired.

[Epinephrine]

Cops, the crux of it is... capitalism has been shown to work, because it is basically a human-created form of evolution. In the same vein, just as evolution, capitalism creates winners and losers, and not everyone wins out. There are a LOT of losers (think all those people who bought Betamax players who lost a lot of money).

When it's merely about a product you're buying (i.e. a mp3 player for instance) it doesn't really matter so much. When it's about something more essential, like health care or minimum living standards... while it's true that in the LONG run capitalism works, in the near term a LOT of people are hurt by it.

Eventually wages will rise if there's sufficient demand. But then again, it will take a very long time for minimum wages to rise naturally because we currently have a global market for jobs, so it is only when completely local jobs (i.e. service jobs that require a physical presence) are exhausted will wages truly rise, such as how Tim Horton's cashiers can make >$12/hour in Calgary.

The problem with this is that healthcare is very unlike other things. Healthcare, by it's very nature has a set base price. For instance, even with years of capitalism, the cost for a lawyer, the cost for a plumber, the cost for a mechanic has been steady relative to the standard of living if you want any which is even decent. This is because all of these are personal 1on1 services which need an experienced person to perform and cannot be mass produced. Thus capitalism has a limited role in lowering the cost of such services directly, even if it can provide all of us more money to hire these people which I believe is independent of any actual 'falling price' for these services. While it's true that the cost of paper, the cost of pipes and the cost of car parts has decreased in price and increased in quality, this has nothing to do with the actual services.

Similarly, medical services are the same. The cost of doctors has actually been falling (doctors now make less money relative to the population than they did 30 years ago) even in Canada, but is still expensive, and will always remain so for obvious reasons. Same with nurses and of course any type of managed care. There is simply no way to mass produce such 1on1 human interactions which take both time to do properly and an expert hand.

Meanwhile, the cost of medical technology and medications have definately fallen and improved as well, but this has ALSO happened in the public healthcare system where such devices and drugs still have to paid for on the open market, but it is merely the SERVICE of providing healthcare that is universal.

But unlike plumbing which you can get away with without doing a really great job, because medical services are even MORE important, as they are in many cases life-or-death, it's not just a matter of having a doctor that's 'good enough and cheap', you actually want someone who's very well trained and intelligent and thus well paid.

Now eventually I assume via the invisible hand of capitalism, we'll have robot doctors, that is if Bill Gates got sick enough, but are we really going to basically ignore everyone else, and allow them to be 'losers' in the capitalist evolutionary system for who knows how many centuries and live without any healthcare?

And does having universal healthcare (one health plan) really hinder the development of new ways of providing healthcare anymore than Jerome's proposition that eventually there will be one extra-good insurance company great enough to provide everyone with healthcare (basically what we have now in Canada, except without a middleman who is solely there to make a profit)? Yes there are efficiencies to be squeezed, but how much can you really squeeze when most money in healthcare is dedicated to buying new equipment, new drugs, and hiring staff, while still achieving the stated goals of giving so much money to developing new equipment and drugs that you're clearly beating the public system because you're overpaying by huge amounts?

My argument has always been no, because of the unique nature of scientific progress, (how basic medical science progress is publicly funded anyway as it does not generally generate profits), how drugs and technology are subject to capitalistic competition even in Canada, and how we have empirical evidence that significant amounts of medical research come from countries with universal healthcare equivalent to their population size. And of course we also get all this cheaper than in private systems because our system isn't out there to make a profit.

Jerome's idea has always been that 'since there are 1 or 2 examples of things going wrong in your system it's all bad', which really isn't much of an argument at all as it's a given that no system (even captialism) is perfect as there will always be some people who get left behind. The idea is that we leave significantly LESS people behind at all times with minimal harm to progress.

Also considering Jerome provides no concrete alternative aside from some extremely vague notions of 'capitalism will take care of everything because you know I'm right', Jerome really doesn't have much of an argument. It's easy to find things which are wrong and nitpick over someone's idea. But it's another thing to ignore all their rebuttals of your nitpicks, and then provide no concrete ideas of your own of which to show an alternate plan. I've attempted to use any examples I could to TRY and figure out Jerome's plan from poking holes in the US system, to showing pure capitalism won't work, but since Jerome has no actual proposition, it's easy to just say 'oh that's not what I'm talking about'. Thus his arguments are purely theoretical and generally based on incomplete factual knowledge about the subject while trying to attach some vague universal views that capitalism is always the best idea for absolutely everything.

[Cops]

I understand that society has a lot of leftovers who were the losers of our capitalist society, that's exactly why the government tries to be the counter balance and we as a society (more or less) believe that if someone is down and out we should help them, because we would also liked to be helped in that situation. I was just pointing out that factory jobs are everywhere and they all pay about 10 an hour, which is great since it allows people with little to no skills to actually be able to have a somewhat normal life, if you're making 10 an hour you're roughly pulling in about $1500 a month, considering you can find an apartment for $600 that's not bad. There's a ton of opportunity's to take that situation and completely flip it around. If the minimum wage was not set in a way that there was a national level then these factory workers would get screwed, hardcore. It's not like the people with far less skills aren't getting these jobs, people who don't even speak English can easily get hired in a factory. Like I said, most times you're told to be somewhere at a certain time and you've got the job.

I have no quarrels with capitalism other than it needs to be watched and government intervention is necessary to ensure that the individual is always being focused on more than the company. The individual is more important than the company.

I know genocidal was saying that all the research and breakthroughs are done solely in America but I remember hearing about a University (in Canada) that possibly created some sort of cancer medication that was funded by private donations. I believe they've been given the green light to test it on cancer patients, if this works I believe the purpose was to make it cheap and available to all. It's great to see a group of people cut through the bureaucracy and do what's right, help as many people as cheap as possible.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Also considering Jerome provides no concrete alternative aside from some extremely vague notions of 'capitalism will take care of everything because you know I'm right', Jerome really doesn't have much of an argument. It's easy to find things which are wrong and nitpick over someone's idea. But it's another thing to ignore all their rebuttals of your nitpicks, and then provide no concrete ideas of your own of which to show an alternate plan. I've attempted to use any examples I could to TRY and figure out Jerome's plan from poking holes in the US system, to showing pure capitalism won't work, but since Jerome has no actual proposition, it's easy to just say 'oh that's not what I'm talking about'. Thus his arguments are purely theoretical and generally based on incomplete factual knowledge about the subject while trying to attach some vague universal views that capitalism is always the best idea for absolutely everything.

For the pi^3 time, I do not advocate a planned system, but that does not mean I do not provide concrete alternatives. For one, I mentioned Somaliland, which was built upon the principles of laissez-faire, and is now considered the best places in Africa to live. I quoted Coperthwaite, who wrote the economic, laissez-faire policy of Hong Kong.

I can not tell you what will happen when the health care market is privatized, because it will be up to everyone else to decide that - the producers, distributors, and consumers of healthcare.

The thing about economics is, it makes no "assumptions". It does not "assume" that people WILL be good, or WILL be bad, or WILL be equal, or anything else. There are no normative statements, only positive ones. The economist derives solutions and answers via the analysis of data, logic, and reason.

That being said, I "know I'm right" because in order to even begin discussion about economics, I have had to validate all my premises and beliefs . I've critically studied history and, like Marx, found it to be nothing more than a series of economic decisions - ie, the quest for more wealth. I support capitalism because it is the least violent, most beneficial way to distribute wealth without intervening.

You and I, Epi, are arguing this from two opposite directions. You say: "People ought to be equal, so therefore, let us pass regulation that gives everyone haalth insurance". The assumptions contained within your normative statement are varied - altruism, statism, et cetera.

When I look at the health care situation, I do it on a more positive (as opposed to normative) basis. I take into consideration many things - for instance, I build my arguments around basic concepts that you would be pretty hard-pressed to argue. Things like scarcity, self-interest, property rights, and the role of government.

I don't see why I'm the one arguing for burden of proof. You are the one making sweeping claims ("we can insure everyone"). You're the idealist. Prove to me that not one person has died because of shortages or waiting lists (and prove to me your system doesn't cause shortages and waiting lists). Prove to me that everyone does, in fact, get equal healthcare. Prove to me that everyone is so happy, that they don't seek alternatives to your healthcare system.

At the point where you can't prove that, your plan has failed.

It was H.L. Mencken who said that "the kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.", and if modern history is any indicator, you'd be also hard-pressed to find a case disproving this guy, too.

Cops and Epi, your arguments about min wage are equally ignorant of economics. For instance, you ignore the concept of inflation caused by minimum wage. Making $1/hr might seem shitty, but when gasoline costs 25 cents a gallon, and a meal at McDonald's costs 50 cents, is that really that bad? You guys need to stop viewing each individual concept as an end to itself and consider their implications on the macroeconomic level. Minimum wage is the government answer to a problem originally created by the government. What does minimum wage do? It causes unemployment, it reduces wealth and causes prices to rise, it leads to workers being replaced by technology, it raises the cost of living, and it also causes crime, because the unemployed often turn to illegal activities to make a living. Thanks for your "near term" help, Epi, I'd rather duke it out in long-term laissez-faire land.

I know how you guys feel, and I know that helping everyone get a fair deal in life is a big issue. But if you really want to help people, why don't you do it yourself? While you guys are "doing good" by hawking off your woes onto the government, who in turn takes your tax money and wastes it, businessmen are improving humanity. It doesn't matter if they are doing it for profit or for genuine interest in helping humankind - that's the beauty of the market, because either way, the rest of us benefit.

And one last thing - I'm sick of a free market being painted in terms of "winners" and "losers". Why? Because it's simply not true. Do you really lose out when you buy something? No. You win because you value a new shirt more than the wad of cash, and the businessman wins because he values cash more than the shirt.

It's only when dealing with the government that there are "Winners" and "Losers". In the case of minimum wage, the winners are the poor and lazy who weren't good enough to try and attain a better job. The losers are the people who were willing to work for less than $x/hr, and the businesses who now must hire less people because they can't afford to pay their current workforce that amount of money.

I despise people who aren't productive, have no purpose, or refuse to try to improve themselves because of "general conditions". If people in the middle of fuckin' war-torn, impoverished, desertified Somalia can rise up to a comfortable standard of living with no help from anyone else but themselves and the wealth they created, then fuck yes I think some bum working at a fast-food place can also make a nice life for himself. I fucking love potential, and I see governmental measures as a direct threat to that sort of freedom. Imagine how many poor people wouldn't be poor if we just got rid of taxes. That alone would be enough money to pay for insurance, or whatever the fuck.

edit:

while it's true that in the LONG run capitalism works, in the near term a LOT of people are hurt by it.

So you're saying that it's ok to destroy our future as long as we are happy now?

[Zeebu]

good stuff,
now all you have to do is convince the cancer patient whos life depends on government aid that this system is the way to go.

be sure to add that it would probably take a little time before everything settles and theyll be able to continue with their therapy at that point. itd be cool though, just tell em to hold in there-capitalism r0x0rs

[Jerome Scuggs]

good stuff,
now all you have to do is convince the cancer patient whos life depends on government aid that this system is the way to go.

be sure to add that it would probably take a little time before everything settles and theyll be able to continue with their therapy at that point. itd be cool though, just tell em to hold in there-capitalism r0x0rs

i'm a cancer patient, you fuck. i have melanoma. ask anyone who knows me irl, or if you want, i'll show you the scars on my back from years of surgery i've had to go through.

your view is another thing that's wrong with your systems: too much dependence on third-party aid. we found a doctor who agreed to do it for an acceptable fee, bypassing government HMO's and all that bullshit. i got my surgery done three days after the checkup, and because of it i couldn't afford to buy a new car, but i find it was a good trade. instead of demanding the government provide me with a new car, i'll just fucking work and save up and buy one. i make 12k a year, yet i live as comfortably as anyone. the only difference is while everyone else is bitching for someone to do something for them, i've been busy actually getting shit done for myself - and actually making intelligent choices, like doing without some things in order to have something better in the future. i go to school, i get good healthcare, i eat three meals a day, and i manage to get laid, all on top of being autistic. so a trillion fuckoffs, m'lady.

[Kolar]

It's only when dealing with the government that there are "Winners" and "Losers". In the case of minimum wage, the winners are the poor and lazy who weren't good enough to try and attain a better job.

That's not always the individual's fault. Obtaining an education is becoming increasingly harder. Those "lazy" "loser" jobs (sounds kinda snoody to me, calling anyone who's willing to work lazy or a loser) are being outsourced or leaving entirely. There are external forces that may effect the job market as Epi said it's a global market. One of the things that we, Western Civilization understood is that the private sector will always be turbulant, it will never 100 percent of the time provide for people. An economy based on capitalism is superior to that of any other kind but there will always be losers no matter what we do. So that's why we decided to correct those wrongs like ensuring poor kids can get a college education or high school education, after school programs, drug programs, retraining programs ect... Social welfare isn't about handing out a fist full of cash to "lazy" people. And how is that not labeling or judging people? You said "stop labeling people" a while back because I acknowledged that a majority of people are middle class based on their income and social standing.

How we accomplish all of this is a matter of debate (NGOs, Government programs ect..) but the issue of funding such things is not, nor will it ever be.

My understand is that a majority of welfare is in the form of tariffs on farm produce being imported. That kind of intervention is not helping us or third world countries, that's the kind of intervention that needs to be removed because it only benefits business, not the general population or developing countries.

[Zeebu]

i'm a cancer patient, you fuck. i have melanoma. ask anyone who knows me irl, or if you want, i'll show you the scars on my back from years of surgery i've had to go through.

your view is another thing that's wrong with your systems: too much dependence on third-party aid. we found a doctor who agreed to do it for an acceptable fee, bypassing government HMO's and all that bullshit. i got my surgery done three days after the checkup, and because of it i couldn't afford to buy a new car, but i find it was a good trade. instead of demanding the government provide me with a new car, i'll just fucking work and save up and buy one.

and i am happy that you found an alternative and recieved the care that you needed. cancer was just an example that came to me. i didnt mean to offend you with my example, apologies. also, i have no reason not to believe you, that would be something stupid to lie about.

i agree that there are probably way too many people that depend on third party aid. you give alternatives which are all well and good, but that still doesnt help the person that is depending on that third party aid that is only getting the help they require because of that third party aid.

lets say you have convinced me that a privitized health care system could be very successful in the long run. its the implementation of it that doesnt sit right with me. (also the fact that it would be encouraged to discard my life becaause i cant afford it, but i suppose thats a problem now anyways)

the point i was trying to make is that while a goverment run healthcare system may be far from perfect, its what we currently have. if there is a chance that switching to a different system could negativly impact those peopel that rely on this system currently, its tought to condone. but youre right, thats the altruism card again. in alot of subjects, that probably shouldnt apply, but when deciding on peoples lives, shouldnt it?

edit: not really sure what i said to earn a trillion fuckoffs either, but double it if you feel the need to do so

[Jerome Scuggs]

the point i was trying to make is that while a goverment run healthcare system may be far from perfect, its what we currently have. if there is a chance that switching to a different system could negativly impact those peopel that rely on this system currently, its tought to condone. but youre right, thats the altruism card again. in alot of subjects, that probably shouldnt apply, but when deciding on peoples lives, shouldnt it?

Yeah, you're right. That's why Fidel Castro's doctors botched three surgeries trying to fix a routine medical ailment. What was his motto, "Socialism or Death?"

What do you tell the dictator patient when even his best doctors can't help him?

In this case, Socialism will actually destroy itself. Heh.

In our case, if private health care was legalized again, insurance premiums would drop because people could begin choosing what they wanted to be insured for. Doctors, free from having to pay taxes and malpractice insurance and wasting time with bureaucracy, begin to charge lower prices because they can afford it, and it brings in more patients. The masses begin taking their healthcare seriously, because they must shop smart, as they say. Malpractice begins to drop rapidly, and doctors began to earn back their respect as healers, which drives more and more people into the practice, creating more jobs and thus, more patient coverage. As the market floods, prices continue to drop, and even more people begin to invest in insurance companies, who begin to pool massive amounts of money and pay for better healthcare and surgeries.

But in the immediate aftermath, a few smart entrepreneurs create a consulting business which offers its services to help people adjust to choosing a new healthcare service that fits within their budgets, no doubt fattened a little by the fact that they didn't have to pay taxes (jesus, this is like erotic literature to me btw). Major law firms see this and emulate it, using their statuses as bigger firms to offer the same consulting service for even cheaper. Eventually, the smaller firms are forced to leave that market, but most wind up working for the bigger firms, with a better salary, anyways. More and more people are set up with an insurance policy and a doctor that fits their budget, lifestyle, and situation.

Doesn't that sound fantastic?

[Jerome Scuggs]

That's not always the individual's fault. Obtaining an education is becoming increasingly harder.

Check your premises, and you'll find the reason education is difficult to obtain is because of government practices.

Those "lazy" "loser" jobs (sounds kinda snoody to me, calling anyone who's willing to work lazy or a loser) are being outsourced or leaving entirely. There are external forces that may effect the job market as Epi said it's a global market. One of the things that we, Western Civilization understood is that the private sector will always be turbulant, it will never 100 percent of the time provide for people. An economy based on capitalism is superior to that of any other kind but there will always be losers no matter what we do. So that's why we decided to correct those wrongs like ensuring poor kids can get a college education or high school education, after school programs, drug programs, retraining programs ect... Social welfare isn't about handing out a fist full of cash to "lazy" people. And how is that not labeling or judging people? You said "stop labeling people" a while back because I acknowledged that a majority of people are middle class based on their income and social standing.

once again, premises. when the government forces businesses to charge more than what the business could have gotten without, of course they're going to move out of the country where they can find people willing to work for less!

this has been my argument, dude! that regulations suck because they can NEVER predict future conditions. with the "good intention" of minimum wage, the government created outsourcing.

the world is, indeed, a turbulent place. that's why i advocate economics, which is the continued adaptation to whatever turbulence is in the moment. it's dynamic and able to cope with changing conditions, no matter how rapid or delayed.

How we accomplish all of this is a matter of debate (NGOs, Government programs ect..) but the issue of funding such things is not, nor will it ever be.

My understand is that a majority of welfare is in the form of tariffs on farm produce being imported. That kind of intervention is not helping us or third world countries, that's the kind of intervention that needs to be removed because it only benefits business, not the general population or developing countries.

Tariffs, once again, were enacted for the benefit of "the people". Only when analysed, people discovered they were merely benefiting business at the expense of the poor (winners and losers, only in politics). Congratulations Kolar, you have finally done what I've been asking you to do and look at the actual contents of a law or regulation and not just the intentions.

[Kolar]

Check your premises, and you'll find the reason education is difficult to obtain is because of government practices.

Explain, give me some stats.

once again, premises. when the government forces businesses to charge more than what the business could have gotten without, of course they're going to move out of the country where they can find people willing to work for less!

So lets go over this again, if minimum wage was removed businesses would pay their workers more or the same, but they want to pay them less to save money so they're moving to a place where that's socially and legally acceptable?

the world is, indeed, a turbulent place. that's why i advocate economics, which is the continued adaptation to whatever turbulence is in the moment. it's dynamic and able to cope with changing conditions, no matter how rapid or delayed.

But like Zeebu said you're dealing with human lives here. People are going to be "losers" no matter how rapidly we adapt. That doesn't mean we have to be apathetic to their situation. Some people require help, I believe a majority of that help should go to those who do want to move up and get out of their crappy situation. Sheer will or personal means alone isn't going to cut it.

I think you mean cause and effect of regulations/laws. I've asked you to do the same thing when considering removing them, but the only response is this: "Altruism!, run for the hills!".

[Jerome Scuggs]

But like Zeebu said you're dealing with human lives here. People are going to be "losers" no matter how rapidly we adapt. That doesn't mean we have to be apathetic to their situation. Some people require help, I believe a majority of that help should go to those who do want to move up and get out of their crappy situation. Sheer will or personal means alone isn't going to cut it.

I think you mean cause and effect of regulations/laws. I've asked you to do the same thing when considering removing them, but the only response is this: "Altruism!, run for the hills!".

Find a way to help these people without taking money from people who don't consent. You can find someone in need and give them all the money you want, hell I'd do the same, especially since I knew that 95% of the money I gave to said guy wouldn't be siphoned off to pay for other things I didn't consent to, like politician salaries and funding wars.

I don't see why removing them would cause so much chaos as you suppose it will. Oh, boy, I don't have to pay for what I don't want, so insurance is cheaper, my life is over. Oh boy, the medical fees are cheaper because insurance companies adjust their fees according to the market and thus doctors don't have to charge so much overhead, my life is over.