[Acton]

Of course there is no effective way to respond to an editorial by The Grey Lady. She is right on all issues of policy, and those of us who disagree are just too benighted to know it. Kristof and Androes in this article both acknowledge that his friend is sick with Stage 4 prostate cancer because he "blew it". But his conclusion is strange -- that Obamacare will somehow save money and lives. All the evidence is that in a free market, it will do neither.

This is a very sad case, and as the story relates, Androes is now paying $1,400 for an ambulance ride when he did not pay "a few hundred dollars" for an early diagnosis. So I am not sure Androes will ever pay for anything unless he deems it to be "fair." He even says he would have bought health insurance if he thought it was "fair."

What does he mean by that? This is the difference between supporters of Obamacare and supporters of the free market. Are the costs of groceries or energy "fair?" Just because I don't think the cost of gas is fair does not mean that I run my car until it is out of gas. And Kristof thinks Androes is "innately prudent?"

Health insurance is currently fair by one measure, since it costs what the insurance companies have to spend, less administrative costs, less a return to their shareholders. The logic of Kristof and Androes is haunting in its stupidity, lack of logic, and lack of economic understanding -- but that's what Harvard has been producing for the last 30 years or so.

Kristof and Androes think that health insurance costs will be more fair if the "return to the shareholders" in the current system is replaced with a government bureaucracy -- which has never proved less costly than free market alternatives. Overall costs will rise because (1) more people will be accessing the system, (2) government bureaucracies are inefficient, nothing you can do about that, and (3) the fact that people perceive it as a bargain (hence, what Androes calls fair), means that people will use more health services than they would in a free market. Androes is really saying that he would not have bought health insurance unless he thought it was "more than fair".

There is nothing in Obamacare make insurance more fair to society as a whole. Sure, there may be some "damned fools" like Androes who will go to a doctor earlier if they think it is fair -- that is, if they think it will cost someone else more than their share of the health care costs. And maybe the insurance company shareholders will get screwed and not get any dividends any more. (Athough most of those shareholders are pension funds that are seeking a constant return for other old age expenses, so nationalizing that income stream will have other consequences.) But that savings will be more than offset by the cost to society of a new government insurance agency coupled with a down payment of 16,000 new IRS agents. Taxes of high net worth individuals will go up, and some people think that is always fair. But as the return to health care professionals decreases, there will be fewer health care professionals.

The economic logic of this article is baffling, yet it is worth studying because it represents the logic of The New York Times -- and graduates of Harvard. And that alone should scare the daylights out of citizens who can think and take care of themselves without a government subsidy.

[nomad]

They are getting desperate.

[Brad from Tennessee]

No one actually dies of prostate cancer. What happens is the cancer, untreated, moves from the prostate to attack more vital organs of the body. All of that usually takes years.

Like a lot of guys, Scott began experiencing symptoms which were hard to distinguish from noncancerous prostate problems. He was at the age when the prostate can act up. So he ignored it expecting it would go away.

Scott would have gotten cancer with or without insurance. He should be allowed to die in dignity rather than being shamelessly exploited by his “friend” who is a political hack costumed as a gay newspaper columnist.

[BilLies]

“The economic logic of this article is baffling, yet it is worth studying because it represents the logic of The New York Times — and graduates of Harvard. And that alone should scare the daylights out of citizens who can think and take care of themselves without a government subsidy.”

What I find incredible is the NYTimes would publish this, I suppose, as an argument for national health insurance. It is like a John arguing that unprotected sex with prostitute would not have consequences if all women would just “putout.” for free .....and/or the government would pay for it. Sandra Fluke to the ultimate.

[bmwcyle]

So kill the old people and give money to young people to save him.

[Marylander]

I don't get it. If he had Obamacare would he have applied for Medicaid? How else would he get a price he considers fair? Perhaps he would have got the diagnosis and then got insurance, but the diagnosis would have cost the same amount of money he already was unwilling to pay, and he would have paid the penalties in addition. Perhaps he would have just bought the insurance to avoid the fine, but he could have done that without the threat of a fine, and it would have been cheaper. What kind of logic are they teaching at Harvard?.

I suspect this guy, if he exists, avoided medical care to make a political point, but an illogical point, and now it has come round to a very sad situation . His friend is trying to console him by printing in the NYT that he was only marginally responsible , mostly it was unfair insurance rates that are killing him.

[juniorbear]

The “fair” comes once a year!!!!. “Fair” is a subjective opinion that cannot be used as a foundational element for determining a course of action. The proper foundation upon which to base laws and personal action is justice. “Fair” cannot be determined for the majority because it is subjective and personal. Typical “progressive” shifting of responsibility.

[Chode]

smart enough to goto harvard but NOT smart enough to buy health insurance???

then he's tooo stooopid to live...

[Smokin' Joe]

I'm admittedly cheap. I did the calculations on what My family's actual medical costs were versus BCBS over 10 years and figured out that we would have saved $88,000.00

Of course past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but the difference was striking enough to seek a high deductible catastrophic health care plan when I opened my own business.

Small stuff comes out of pocket. When it is time to go to the doctor, it is time, and waiting will cost you more.

I had cancer surgery not too long ago, which was the first event which produced bills high enough to trip the co-pay bit, and paid the rest out of pocket, about $5,000.00

You pays your money and takes your choice.

When the symptoms would not go away, I got checked out--such vigilance is the first line of defense for any prospective patient.

So why did this guy wait? A PSA is relatively cheap, and that might have been enough to indicate it was time to get serious about his condition--before it hit stage 4.

I do not envy him the results of his choices, but I do question waiting so long.

[depressed in 06]

I am incensed at how the Bolshies play this anecdotal “Queen for a Day” sob story, then, want to give everyone a new washing machine. Sandra “Slut” Fluke says she cannot afford sex, but, wants me to pay for her and every other woman’s search for Ron Jeremy.

[Oratam]

Legislating by anecdote. If you oppose this, you are a heartless bastard.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Iodine in the diet is key to preventing prostate cancer, breast cancer and others. Here are two quotes from Dr. James Howenstine, MD.

1. “Iodine lack is known to be a factor in the development of breast and prostate cancer. Sixty patients with a variety of cancers were studied. All sixty patients were found to have serious iodine deficiency.”

2. “Iodine deficiency is a recognized risk factor in the development of cancer of the breast, prostate, and probably the ovary and endometrium.”

Other medical doctors know this. It does not take billions of dollars spent on ObamaCare to see that We The People get enough iodine in the diet to help prevent cancer, especially breast and prostate cancers.

Our diet has not always been so deficient in iodine. Forty years ago the food industry decided to remove iodine from baked goods and replace the iodine with bromine. Iodine and bromine appear similar to the thyroid gland and bromine easily binds to the thyroid gland’s receptors for iodine.

Bromine, however, is of no value to the thyroid gland unlike iodine and it inhibits the activity of iodine in the thyroid gland. Bromine also can cause impaired thinking and memory, drowsiness, dizziness and irritability.

This substitution of bromine for iodine has resulted in nearly universal deficiency of iodine in the American populace.

Iodine therapy helps the body eliminate fluoride, bromine, lead, cadmium, arsenic, aluminum and mercury.

Could this substitution of bromine for iodine have been carried out to increase diseases and thus create more need for pharmaceutical drugs?

[APatientMan]

“...several hundred dollars out of pocket — just enough disincentive to get me to make a bad decision.”

Unfortunately, people like this tend to breed and pass on their victim mentality before they die of their own stupidity.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An editorial writer at The New York Times (Nicholas Kristof) makes an impassioned plea to vote for Obama because a friend from his youth and days at Harvard (Scott Androes) is dying of cancer...

A Harvard grad who wasn't smart enough to get health insurance?

Whose fault is that?

[wildbill]

How would having insurance prevented the cancer?

If he was successful in his career as a ‘financial consultant’ wouldn’t he have more than enough money to pay for his insurance?

Don’t financial consultants counsel their clients to have proper insurance to take care of unexpected occurrences like auto accidents, ordinary illness and catastrophic illness?

Should the US healthcare industry be turned over to the government bureaucrats so financial consultants who should know better are forced to pay for insurance.

[jch10]

Somewhere, along the line, we all learn that we must live with the choices we make......some learn this earlier than others.....