|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) criticized Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for the partial government shutdown, admitting Cruz "did more harm" than good with his attempt to defund President Barack Obama's health care law.
"I would say that in the end he did more harm," Santorum said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "I think it was not his objective. I think his objective was a laudable one."
Prior to the shutdown, which left hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed without pay for over two weeks and cost the U.S. economy an estimated $24 billion, Santorum voiced support for Cruz's plan to tie anti-Obamacare measures to the government funding bill.
"It’s too soon to tell whether the strategy has worked or not, will it move the debate this way? But I think that’s really ultimately, what I think Ted’s is trying to accomplish and I think he’s certainly is pulling out all the bullets to get it done," Santorum told CNN in September.
However, on Sunday, Santorum said Cruz's plan failed in its execution.
"I think he didn't do a very good job in pointing [his objective] out," Santorum said. "It's one thing to have a goal, and another thing to have a plan to get you to that goal, and he didn't figure that out."
Source
|
On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up.
Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget?
And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor?
|
On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor?
What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low.
|
On October 28 2013 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor? What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low.
The real problem is the bill does nothing to actually lower the exorbitant costs of health care. Trying to force people to pay more money isn't a solution to that problem.
Eventually you run into a wall, where the people you are fining become the people who simply don't have the money to pay the fine, and the higher you set the fine the more people will fall into that category. What about the people who are too low income to afford the premiums or fines but not low income enough to qualify for medicare?
The more you look at this bill the more you see it is simply designed to force the country into a single payer system. You've got to get enough of the country miserable and angry with the existing system to finally get single payer passed.
|
On October 28 2013 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor? What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low.
Ah thanks! I never thought about health insurance in that way.  Nah I know that. I just forgot that the way ACA works or more how the health system in the US is.
|
On October 28 2013 05:53 Scareb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor? What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low. Ah thanks! I never thought about health insurance in that way.
Health insurance is all about spreading costs. healthy and sick pay for the sick onces because on there own the sick could never afford it. Which leads to point 2 below.
On October 28 2013 05:53 Thomas Sowell wrote:
The real problem is the bill does nothing to actually lower the exorbitant costs of health care. Trying to force people to pay more money isn't a solution to that problem.
Eventually you run into a wall, where the people you are fining become the people who simply don't have the money to pay the fine, and the higher you set the fine the more people will fall into that category. What about the people who are too low income to afford the premiums or fines but not low income enough to qualify for medicare?
The more you look at this bill the more you see it is simply designed to force the country into a single payer system. You've got to get enough of the country miserable and angry with the existing system to finally get single payer passed.
Thats not how it (should) work at all. By requiring everyone to have insurance you are spreading to cost more, because those who opt out for whatever reason now are not paying there part. More healthy people on insurance = lower costs per person.
The actual cost of the medical procedure for the hospital is a totally different problem tho part of it is also insurance. Uninsured people treated by the hospital dont bring in money if they cant afford it so they have to take the money from those you can pay, but the problem is bigger then that.
As for the fines. The whole point of the fine is such that it should make people get insurance. If its cheaper then the insurance its not helping since your still not spreading the cost over everyone.
And yes there are people to low to afford healthcare but not poor enough to qualify for Medicare. Which is why the government spend a lot of money to cover the gap, the Medicaid expansion. However a lot of states (all of them Republican I believe) have rejected this for various reasons. Obama knew about the gap and tried to cover it only to once again be obstructed at the cost of other people.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing
|
On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing
because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching.
I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried.
|
On October 28 2013 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:53 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor? What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low. Ah thanks! I never thought about health insurance in that way. Health insurance is all about spreading costs. healthy and sick pay for the sick onces because on there own the sick could never afford it. Which leads to point 2 below.
all insurance is about that.
|
On October 28 2013 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:53 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor? What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low. Ah thanks! I never thought about health insurance in that way. Health insurance is all about spreading costs. healthy and sick pay for the sick onces because on there own the sick could never afford it. Which leads to point 2 below. Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:53 Thomas Sowell wrote:
The real problem is the bill does nothing to actually lower the exorbitant costs of health care. Trying to force people to pay more money isn't a solution to that problem.
Eventually you run into a wall, where the people you are fining become the people who simply don't have the money to pay the fine, and the higher you set the fine the more people will fall into that category. What about the people who are too low income to afford the premiums or fines but not low income enough to qualify for medicare?
The more you look at this bill the more you see it is simply designed to force the country into a single payer system. You've got to get enough of the country miserable and angry with the existing system to finally get single payer passed. Thats not how it (should) work at all. By requiring everyone to have insurance you are spreading to cost more, because those who opt out for whatever reason now are not paying there part. More healthy people on insurance = lower costs per person. The actual cost of the medical procedure for the hospital is a totally different problem tho part of it is also insurance. Uninsured people treated by the hospital dont bring in money if they cant afford it so they have to take the money from those you can pay, but the problem is bigger then that.
As for the fines. The whole point of the fine is such that it should make people get insurance. If its cheaper then the insurance its not helping since your still not spreading the cost over everyone. And yes there are people to low to afford healthcare but not poor enough to qualify for Medicare. Which is why the government spend a lot of money to cover the gap, the Medicaid expansion. However a lot of states (all of them Republican I believe) have rejected this for various reasons. Obama knew about the gap and tried to cover it only to once again be obstructed at the cost of other people.
Yes this can be partially fixed by having everyone insured, the insurance companies have more power to leverage prices vs hospitals when everyone is insured. Insurance companies can make or break a hospital with it's thousand of clients that they can possibly lose if they don't give them good prices, thus lowering the cost.
|
On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried.
The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way).
Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not.
|
Not only do the young have to bear the cost of rising tuition and a poor job market, we're also expected to subsidize the baby boomer generation. Wow, you guys are so empathetic and generous! Pat yourselves on the back. How about, the baby boomers pay for their own medical costs, and we will pay for ours. They've had ample time to save for their retirement, and the Federal Government all ready has many welfare programs for them all ready. None of this however addresses the costs of healthcare. Forcing people into these systems won't lower prices, and won't solve the problem. It's no wonder the people against the price mechanism have no clue on how the price mechanism works and what its purpose is for.
Every idea put forth to lower the costs is met with animosity and a warped idea that we're out to diabolically kill everyone. For instance, insisting that licensure's and the AMA restrictions on the medical profession should be lifted/abolished is met with hostility as if the quality of care would lower, or that fraud would suddenly be legal. Obviously, increasing the number of healthcare workers and stripping the Government of billions of licensure fees would lower costs via significantly lowering market entry for such professionals. Then when we talk about the FDA making R&D projects significantly more expensive than they need to be leading to an increase in drug costs, we're berated that we want folks to be taking rat poison, or that unsafe drugs will litter the market. As far as I am aware, none of this happened prior to the FDA, and businesses have the innate incentive not to kill their patients and not to get sued into infinity and beyond (beyond the bad reputation said drug would cause). That's not to even mention that we should be legalizing every drug not only because it's the libertarian thing to do, but because it too would significantly lower drug costs and reduce violent crime rates at the same time. Then there's the the free-trade argument that we should abolish all tariff's and open our borders to commerce. If you want to buy a generic drug from Canada, or Switzerland, or any drug wherever, you should be free to do so. Competitive advantage here too, would lower costs.
That's just the beginning. I'd argue we could do more by lifting insurance restrictions (re: discrimination), so that insurance does what it is supposed to do. You're supposed to be grouped into similar risk pools so as to make an honest assessment of your potential costs. In other words, people who smoke should pay higher premiums. Ideally, we could lower prices enough so that insurance is unneeded, the way it used to be for most of American history. That's all assuming we could overpower the lobbying and crony interests, which, is a more difficult task than convincing the population that more freedom is the answer than more Government.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if healthcare is 20% of your gdp, it is still inefficient whether it's a private sector or publicly run.
|
On October 28 2013 08:10 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried. The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way). Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not.
If you actually read those ranking methodologies, they're hilariously biased. They rank based on criteria such as if you have Government-ran healthcare for instance. Beyond that, they never take into account the lifestyles and its antecedent risks on the population. Of course when a majority of your population is obese, and eating terribly that healthcare costs are going to be more than for instance Japan where their diet is much more conservative. That's not to say one is better than the other, it is to say that the majority of people in America rather eat what they do and live a certain lifestyle and choose to pay more in healthcare costs. Freedom allows people to make 'bad' choices. They also don't factor quality of care into the equation. Anyone who tries to use these measurements as some form of objective 'gotcha' has never read the methodologies or thought about it for a second, or they have a vested ideological interest in the outcome, regardless of the methodology.
|
On October 28 2013 08:10 Wegandi wrote:
businesses have the innate incentive not to kill their patients and not to get sued into infinity and beyond (beyond the bad reputation said drug would cause). .
And yet corporations time after time take a short term view that leaves their customers with the short end of the stick.
|
On October 28 2013 08:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:10 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried. The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way). Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not. If you actually read those ranking methodologies, they're hilariously biased. They rank based on criteria such as if you have Government-ran healthcare for instance. Beyond that, they never take into account the lifestyles and its antecedent risks on the population. Of course when a majority of your population is obese, and eating terribly that healthcare costs are going to be more than for instance Japan where their diet is much more conservative. That's not to say one is better than the other, it is to say that the majority of people in America rather eat what they do and live a certain lifestyle and choose to pay more in healthcare costs. Freedom allows people to make 'bad' choices. They also don't factor quality of care into the equation. Anyone who tries to use these measurements as some form of objective 'gotcha' has never read the methodologies or thought about it for a second, or they have a vested ideological interest in the outcome, regardless of the methodology.
1. Canadians eat the same diets you eat, yet we spend way less than you
2. Poor people arent 'free' to eat what they want, they eat what they can afford and for most of them it means diets rich in sugar and fats
3. People dont 'choose' to pay more for healthcare, if your job doesnt cover your insurgence your option are (a) pay a shit ton of money to a rentier hospital (b) wait until its emergency room time with the cost picked up by everyone
|
On October 28 2013 08:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:10 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried. The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way). Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not. If you actually read those ranking methodologies, they're hilariously biased. They rank based on criteria such as if you have Government-ran healthcare for instance. Beyond that, they never take into account the lifestyles and its antecedent risks on the population. Of course when a majority of your population is obese, and eating terribly that healthcare costs are going to be more than for instance Japan where their diet is much more conservative. That's not to say one is better than the other, it is to say that the majority of people in America rather eat what they do and live a certain lifestyle and choose to pay more in healthcare costs. Freedom allows people to make 'bad' choices. They also don't factor quality of care into the equation. Anyone who tries to use these measurements as some form of objective 'gotcha' has never read the methodologies or thought about it for a second, or they have a vested ideological interest in the outcome, regardless of the methodology.
Yes surely everyone in Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Denmark, etc. are all deluded and only you can see past their incorrect belief that they have access to good healthcare.
|
On October 28 2013 08:32 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:20 Wegandi wrote:On October 28 2013 08:10 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried. The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way). Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not. If you actually read those ranking methodologies, they're hilariously biased. They rank based on criteria such as if you have Government-ran healthcare for instance. Beyond that, they never take into account the lifestyles and its antecedent risks on the population. Of course when a majority of your population is obese, and eating terribly that healthcare costs are going to be more than for instance Japan where their diet is much more conservative. That's not to say one is better than the other, it is to say that the majority of people in America rather eat what they do and live a certain lifestyle and choose to pay more in healthcare costs. Freedom allows people to make 'bad' choices. They also don't factor quality of care into the equation. Anyone who tries to use these measurements as some form of objective 'gotcha' has never read the methodologies or thought about it for a second, or they have a vested ideological interest in the outcome, regardless of the methodology. 1. Canadians eat the same diets you eat, yet we spend way less than you 2. Poor people arent 'free' to eat what they want, they eat what they can afford and for most of them it means diets rich in sugar and fats 3. People dont 'choose' to pay more for healthcare, if your job doesnt cover your insurgence your option are (a) pay a shit ton of money to a rentier hospital (b) wait until its emergency room time with the cost picked up by everyone
1. Why is Canadian obesity so much lower than American if we eat the same things?
2. America has relatively few poor, compared to every other country, but that trend is getting worse and worse (we can argue why in other threads)
3. People do 'choose' to pay more, by choosing certain lifestyles. If you smoke, you're making a conscious choice to assume the risks and the costs of such a choice. If you drink, or if you abuse heroine, or if you eat McDonald's every day instead of cooking, etc. Then there is the technological incentives now-a-days that has overtaken physical activity leading to more obesity (in conjunction with the diet). Of course, healthcare costs are artificially raised, but that doesn't have anything to do with not being ran by Government. Everything Government manages to monopolize its costs are greater than the non-monopolized choice (e.g. market), and included in this criticism are the writs of monopoly the Government hands out to certain industries like Telecomm, Energy, etc.
|
On October 28 2013 08:29 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:10 Wegandi wrote:
businesses have the innate incentive not to kill their patients and not to get sued into infinity and beyond (beyond the bad reputation said drug would cause). . And yet corporations time after time take a short term view that leaves their customers with the short end of the stick.
I'm sure that Government intervention which warps incentives has nothing at all do with it...Corporations themselves being writs of Government chartering...Most libertarians are not for the legalized privileges of Corporations fyi. When we talk of the market, and business, we're talking about an environment where the enabling laws are abolished, and these privileges are gotten rid of. In other words, the owner and or shareholders are liable for actions undertaken. I mean, take for instance the sub prime mess. Without Government intervention and without the Fed these entities 1) would have never existed in the first place, but as importantly 2) would have never been incentivized to take the action they did take. I know this critique is foreign for almost every non-liberarian, but please, try and not equate current day situations with what I am talking about.
|
United States43269 Posts
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
