|
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. |
On March 22 2017 10:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2017 08:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) Well, Republicans certainly didn't have a solution after 6 years of pretending they did. I suggest you run for election next time, since you have one.
I want nothing to do with that cesspool, and it's simply not true that the Freedom Caucus or people like Rand have no 'plan'. The GOP isn't monolithic and you can't just say 'Republicans' like they don't have internecine rifts. My point was that it's stupid to say people are for higher costs if they're for market solutions. That's just idiotic. I guess 'lefties' only hate monopolies when it isn't the Government at the helm. Nationalizing (monopolizing) all sorts of services apparently are outside the economic phenomena of what happens through monopolization (e.g. like the Government nationalizing something is going to make it cheaper...don't make me laugh too hard (what it does do though is make it much harder to audit and follow how much something actually costs due to the obfuscatory nature of taxation and expropriation)).
I can only assume people ignorant of economics will put forth the argument that medicare for all would be cheaper than a genuine free-market (e.g. without IP, Patent, subsidies, mandates either of insurance or employers, etc.). Tying healthcare to employers and employment was one of the dumbest ideas to come out of the FDR regime.
|
On March 22 2017 07:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:
2018 is the prize right now. The political climate could be anything in 4 years. But one year from now people are going to have to start thinking about running for the House and Senate. And they are going to have plenty of ammunition. I have a hard time not seeing the Republican party going full Titanic in two years. Trump and the cartoon vilains that surround him have done more damage to the GOP brand than Bush did in 8 years, and that's no small achievment. And when millions of people are gonna start losing medical coverage it's not going to be pretty at all.
The Republican Party will come crashing down, but the democrats have no leaders and no unified vision to capitalize. The republicans biggest blunder is talking tough on Obamacare, now whatever consequence of the repeal will be on their hands. Given how much shit they talked about obama care no one is going to be sympathetic to a less than perfect solution which increases choice and lowers cost.
|
On March 22 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) I mean it is. Insurance can't fix prices being too high, that's literally not a thing that insurance does. Insurance turns irregular high prices into regular low prices through spreading risk. But if the problem is that the risk and the cost are both too high, ie you have a preexisting condition, you cannot lower the cost with insurance. The only way to lower the cost is through forced redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy. That's the unavoidable truth.
No, that is not the only way. People have become so accustomed to the current quagmire that they can't even fathom a time when you didn't need insurance except for catastrophic injury due to how cheap healthcare was. The healthcare system wasn't always 90% controlled by the Government via mandates, requirements, impositions, rules and regulations, licensing, etc.
Now, is healthcare going to be cheap for everyone (much cheaper than any Government solution and the status-quo)? No, but getting rid of IP/Patent, licensing, mandates (so you know...insurance does what it is supposed to do - evaluate actuarial risk), allowing tax credits for HSA's, allowing people to pool together to buy insurance as a group outside of employment, buying across state lines/more competition, making it easier to build and run hospitals (regulations/rules/etc.) so that there is more competition, etc. Lots of stuff can be done outside of your narrow view.
|
Health insurance does not function in a free market. It is the opposite of a free market, since the consumer is under duress and cannot compare prices. Also the free market requires failure to function. Lot of it. No one is interested in failing health insurance providers or emergency rooms.
Also we don't let people die because they are poor. The free market ship sailed when the nation decided we were not monsters. Now its just a question of how we pay for it. Luckily we have all these totally functional nations with great blueprints to follow. And they all pay less than the US for health coverage due to the entire population funding the coverage.
Edit: LOL, health insurance started to cost more when we invented things beyond the x-ray and learned how to operate on the brain. Replacing knees is cool, but wheel chairs are cheaper. Cost more long term because that person can't work any more, but health insurance is less expensive. It was cheaper when we didn't have solutions to problems and people just died younger.
|
On March 22 2017 10:34 Plansix wrote:
Health insurance does not function in a free market. It is the opposite of a free market, since the consumer is under duress and cannot compare prices. Also the free market requires failure to function. Lot of it. No one is interested in failing health insurance providers or emergency rooms.
Also we don't let people die because they are poor. The free market ship sailed when the nation decided we were not monsters. Now its just a question of how we pay for it. Luckily we have all these totally functional nations with great blueprints to follow. And they all pay less than the US for health coverage due to the entire population funding the coverage.
Yes, because insurance has never been a model in any market (/snark). Insurance is fine, when it is supposed to do what its intended purpose is (as I said before). The idea that you need insurance for everything under the sun is anathema, you're right, and that's the problem. The idea that either you subsidize and mandate insurance, or you nationalize healthcare is a false dichotomy. If your only retort to that is - poor people will die, that's never happened. Poor people actually had better care in mutual organizations because they could negotiate cheaper prices by virtue of population. Prices were so depressed between 1900 and 1920 that you had healthcare workers writing editorials in papers decrying how low their salaries were. The government stepped in and fixed that and now were in the extreme side of that scale, and that's me saying that as a healthcare worker. Government collusion in the healthcare market and its interference has created the situation we're in today. Advocating for more of the same is not a good solution.
I can only imagine the disaster that would be medicare for all.
|
Can people stop parroting the state line thing more about more competition so lower prices nonsense? Also HSAs are a joke of a solution.
|
Health care in the Great Depression is not a model for to be shooting for. Considering emergency rooms were not even mandated until the 1980s, I don't think your plan is viable or realistic. It sounds deeply naive and based on a blind worship of a market force coined by Adam Smith to lower prices and not lower the quality of life.
Until you think we should remove the federal requirement for emergency rooms? If that is your plan, I wish you luck in selling the nation on it. Personally I would prefer we enter the ranks of modern nations that figured this shit out because they don't have an irrational fear of their elected government.
Edit: I agree. The state line garbage is just garbage. I'm not dumb enough to buy car insurance from another state and I'm not being that dumb with health insurance. That is just a way for insurance companies to fuck people over.
|
Despite a frantic lobbying effort, President Donald Trump and House GOP leaders are still short of the votes they need to pass their Obamacare replacement bill, just two days before the legislation is set to be taken up on the floor.
Conservative hard-liners from the House Freedom Caucus are threatening to derail the legislation, saying revisions announced on Monday night don’t go far enough. A handful of moderate Republicans are also balking at the Trump-backed measure. They’re worried about damaging themselves politically by voting for a proposal that will never make it through the Senate.
The upshot is that Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan and other GOP leaders are dealing with a legislative balloon — whenever they push on one side, it pops out somewhere else. Every concession or revision they make has the potential to cause more problems for the other end of the conference.
White House officials and Republican leaders remain optimistic that they will get the 215 votes they need, but it will be very tight.
Hours after being singled out by Trump over his opposition to the Republican health care plan, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said his group of conservatives still has the votes to block the bill. Freedom Caucus insiders say the group has 27 members who are firmly against it or leaning "no."
House GOP leaders can afford to lose only 22 members on the bill.
Trump, eager to stave off an embarrassing defeat that could hobble his legislative agenda for the rest of the year, has dramatically stepped up his efforts to shift votes.
After personally calling out Meadows during a GOP Conference meeting Tuesday, Trump held a series of face-to-face meetings with lawmakers later in the day. At a bill-signing ceremony in the West Wing Tuesday afternoon, Trump pulled aside a number of Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), to try to cajole them to support the package.
Later in the afternoon, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) escorted a group of more than 15 moderate members to the Oval Office to meet with Trump. And the president will continue to buttonhole GOP members at a high-profile fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee Tuesday night.
“I think these group meetings are great,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). “[Members] can explain, they get the one-on-one; members get to talk about what the concerns are. The president’s really become very versed in it. I was really impressed by it … He’s been very flexible with his time.”
Yet GOP leaders and White House officials privately admit they’re still short of the votes they need.
“We’re not there yet,” said a top House Republican. “I think we’ll get there, especially with Trump working it, but we’re not there right now.”
Freedom Caucus sources said the group is planning to hold a news conference early Wednesday to trumpet its opposition to the bill, despite Trump's pleas for support. The group's leaders hope to have all 27 members who oppose or are leaning against the measure show up, as well as ultraconservatives in the Senate who oppose it.
"I serve at the will of 750,000 people in western North Carolina, and my primary job, more than anything else, is to serve them," Meadows told reporters Tuesday. "I believe I am representing them in opposing this bill because it won’t lower premiums. And until it does I’m going to be a no — even if it sends me home."
Meadows also met privately with Vice President Mike Pence after the GOP Conference meeting, but did not change his position. The lawmaker said Pence did not lean too hard on him.
“Was it brass knuckles or bare fists? No,” Meadows said afterward.
Source
|
On March 22 2017 10:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 10:34 Plansix wrote:
Health insurance does not function in a free market. It is the opposite of a free market, since the consumer is under duress and cannot compare prices. Also the free market requires failure to function. Lot of it. No one is interested in failing health insurance providers or emergency rooms.
Also we don't let people die because they are poor. The free market ship sailed when the nation decided we were not monsters. Now its just a question of how we pay for it. Luckily we have all these totally functional nations with great blueprints to follow. And they all pay less than the US for health coverage due to the entire population funding the coverage. Yes, because insurance has never been a model in any market (/snark). Insurance is fine, when it is supposed to do what its intended purpose is (as I said before). The idea that you need insurance for everything under the sun is anathema, you're right, and that's the problem. The idea that either you subsidize and mandate insurance, or you nationalize healthcare is a false dichotomy. If your only retort to that is - poor people will die, that's never happened. Poor people actually had better care in mutual organizations because they could negotiate cheaper prices by virtue of population. Prices were so depressed between 1900 and 1920 that you had healthcare workers writing editorials in papers decrying how low their salaries were. The government stepped in and fixed that and now were in the extreme side of that scale, and that's me saying that as a healthcare worker. Government collusion in the healthcare market and its interference has created the situation we're in today. Advocating for more of the same is not a good solution. I can only imagine the disaster that would be medicare for all.
You don't need to imagine the disaster when other countries have tried medicare for all and have not burned down overnight. Dogma is death and if anything has been shown true in economics its ideological flexibility helps everyone and solves everything over time. The Healthcare industry has growth far too big in america but the real benefits that people can see today in technological development isn't something to dismiss as being a terrible situation.
People will bankrupt themselves and their group to survive another day and simply collectivizing that decision is the only way to move forward.
|
On March 22 2017 08:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:So Tillerson dodging a NATO meeting is not a normal thing at all. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/21/tillerson-poised-to-skip-first-ever-nato-meeting-rex-secretary-of-state-nato-allies-worried-trump-russia-ties/Show nested quote +A former U.S. official and NATO diplomat told Reuters, which first reported the story, that NATO quietly offered to move the dates to fit what would be Tillerson’s first Brussels visit on his schedule. The official said the State Department declined the initial offer.
It is highly unusual for a U.S. secretary to skip NATO ministerial meetings, which are held separately for foreign and defense ministers several times a year. The last secretary of state to miss a foreign ministerial was Colin Powell, who canceled his ministerial attendance last-minute during the start of the Iraq war in 2003.
NATO has convened defense and foreign ministerial meetings since the early days of the Cold War. The meetings are one of the only semi-regular venues for European ministers to get face-time with their American counterparts. They’re also a critical mechanism for getting things done in the NATO bureaucracy, Townsend said. “It drove us to put down on paper alliance positions and hash out agreements and actions,” he said.
Not just dodging NATO, but dodging it for Russia.
Why do we even need to talk to Russia, that the Sec of State needs to actually go over there? Somehow meddling in our elections is something that should be rewarded? I forgot, Trump's policy is all about forgive and forget.
Ridiculous. But, this story has been reversed really quick, as soon as the story released. Tillerson will be pressured into the right thing. Which is why I'm not worried, just disgusted.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tillerson-nato-idUSKBN16S18S
Tillerson worked with Russia's government for years as a top executive at Exxon Mobil Corp, and has questioned sanctions against Moscow that he said could harm U.S. businesses.
"We needed to hear his vision for the alliance," said a diplomat due to attend the April ministerial meeting.
NATO's quarterly meetings are closed-door sessions over about two days in which governments discuss security strategies and approve top secret documents designed to guide the nuclear-armed alliance in areas ranging from training in Afghanistan to defenses against Iranian missiles.
Given the U.S. role as the de facto head of the alliance, it is rare for the country's top diplomat to miss a NATO meeting. The last time was during the Iraq war in 2003, when Colin Powell was forced to cancel at the last moment.
Trump himself is expected in Brussels for a NATO summit in May, although the date is still under discussion. NATO has proposed holding that meeting on May 25, a NATO diplomat said.
Several diplomats said they were unhappy that Tillerson had not offered to hold a NATO meeting in Washington later this week, given that most alliance foreign ministers and Stoltenberg will be there for a meeting of an international coalition against the Islamic State militant group.
A State Department spokeswoman said on Monday night that all NATO members except Croatia would be at those talks. On Tuesday, Toner said Croatia would in fact attend, saying the department had made "a late night gaffe" and adding, "in no way do we want to diminish Croatia's valuable role within the alliance."
But yeah, totally cool that our Sec of State was the CEO of a company with large amounts of interest in Russian trade. Makes total fucking sense and bears no conflict of interest whatsoever. Jesus Christ.
LegalLord, just to be clear: this whole scenario of Trump changing the U.S.'s policy towards NATO and/or Russia is not going to happen, no matter how much the President wants it to. At the end of the day, Russia has obviously only worsened its relations to America, and in a way that the people themselves will be more critical of. Even suggesting the lifting of sanctions is going to be political-suicide for the Trump administration, at least for a couple years but probably throughout his term.
Although it's my contention that Putin doesn't want friends with the West anyways, he wants boogeymen to blame for his people's problems. And stories about meddling in American elections feed his image. How anyone can look at Putin's "presidency" and see NATO as "obsolete" and then become elected President of America is astounding though. I certainly never would've guessed it.
|
United States43277 Posts
On March 22 2017 10:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) I mean it is. Insurance can't fix prices being too high, that's literally not a thing that insurance does. Insurance turns irregular high prices into regular low prices through spreading risk. But if the problem is that the risk and the cost are both too high, ie you have a preexisting condition, you cannot lower the cost with insurance. The only way to lower the cost is through forced redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy. That's the unavoidable truth. No, that is not the only way. People have become so accustomed to the current quagmire that they can't even fathom a time when you didn't need insurance except for catastrophic injury due to how cheap healthcare was. The healthcare system wasn't always 90% controlled by the Government via mandates, requirements, impositions, rules and regulations, licensing, etc. Now, is healthcare going to be cheap for everyone (much cheaper than any Government solution and the status-quo)? No, but getting rid of IP/Patent, licensing, mandates (so you know...insurance does what it is supposed to do - evaluate actuarial risk), allowing tax credits for HSA's, allowing people to pool together to buy insurance as a group outside of employment, buying across state lines/more competition, making it easier to build and run hospitals (regulations/rules/etc.) so that there is more competition, etc. Lots of stuff can be done outside of your narrow view.
Ah yes, the mythical beforetime where MRIs could be had for a quarter by your village doctor.
|
On March 22 2017 11:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 10:33 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) I mean it is. Insurance can't fix prices being too high, that's literally not a thing that insurance does. Insurance turns irregular high prices into regular low prices through spreading risk. But if the problem is that the risk and the cost are both too high, ie you have a preexisting condition, you cannot lower the cost with insurance. The only way to lower the cost is through forced redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy. That's the unavoidable truth. No, that is not the only way. People have become so accustomed to the current quagmire that they can't even fathom a time when you didn't need insurance except for catastrophic injury due to how cheap healthcare was. The healthcare system wasn't always 90% controlled by the Government via mandates, requirements, impositions, rules and regulations, licensing, etc. Now, is healthcare going to be cheap for everyone (much cheaper than any Government solution and the status-quo)? No, but getting rid of IP/Patent, licensing, mandates (so you know...insurance does what it is supposed to do - evaluate actuarial risk), allowing tax credits for HSA's, allowing people to pool together to buy insurance as a group outside of employment, buying across state lines/more competition, making it easier to build and run hospitals (regulations/rules/etc.) so that there is more competition, etc. Lots of stuff can be done outside of your narrow view. Ah yes, the mythical beforetime where MRIs could be had for a quarter by your village doctor.
In an era before the bankruptcy courts or the modern concept of hospitals.
|
On March 22 2017 11:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 10:33 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) I mean it is. Insurance can't fix prices being too high, that's literally not a thing that insurance does. Insurance turns irregular high prices into regular low prices through spreading risk. But if the problem is that the risk and the cost are both too high, ie you have a preexisting condition, you cannot lower the cost with insurance. The only way to lower the cost is through forced redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy. That's the unavoidable truth. No, that is not the only way. People have become so accustomed to the current quagmire that they can't even fathom a time when you didn't need insurance except for catastrophic injury due to how cheap healthcare was. The healthcare system wasn't always 90% controlled by the Government via mandates, requirements, impositions, rules and regulations, licensing, etc. Now, is healthcare going to be cheap for everyone (much cheaper than any Government solution and the status-quo)? No, but getting rid of IP/Patent, licensing, mandates (so you know...insurance does what it is supposed to do - evaluate actuarial risk), allowing tax credits for HSA's, allowing people to pool together to buy insurance as a group outside of employment, buying across state lines/more competition, making it easier to build and run hospitals (regulations/rules/etc.) so that there is more competition, etc. Lots of stuff can be done outside of your narrow view. Ah yes, the mythical beforetime where MRIs could be had for a quarter by your village doctor.
or a sack of potatoes or fresh eggs delivered for the next 6 months.
|
Even if you had an ideal free market for healthcare with perfect price transparency, equal competition, and the like, you are basically just saying "rich people deserve to live longer than poor people." If the market price for dealing with a tree branch through your thorax is $10,000, and I don't have $10,000 to pay and get a tree branch through my thorax, I die.
It's not like a free car market results in everyone getting a good car. It might make the average car better, but the problem is, a bad healthcare car means you die.
|
United States43277 Posts
On March 22 2017 11:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 11:08 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:33 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) I mean it is. Insurance can't fix prices being too high, that's literally not a thing that insurance does. Insurance turns irregular high prices into regular low prices through spreading risk. But if the problem is that the risk and the cost are both too high, ie you have a preexisting condition, you cannot lower the cost with insurance. The only way to lower the cost is through forced redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy. That's the unavoidable truth. No, that is not the only way. People have become so accustomed to the current quagmire that they can't even fathom a time when you didn't need insurance except for catastrophic injury due to how cheap healthcare was. The healthcare system wasn't always 90% controlled by the Government via mandates, requirements, impositions, rules and regulations, licensing, etc. Now, is healthcare going to be cheap for everyone (much cheaper than any Government solution and the status-quo)? No, but getting rid of IP/Patent, licensing, mandates (so you know...insurance does what it is supposed to do - evaluate actuarial risk), allowing tax credits for HSA's, allowing people to pool together to buy insurance as a group outside of employment, buying across state lines/more competition, making it easier to build and run hospitals (regulations/rules/etc.) so that there is more competition, etc. Lots of stuff can be done outside of your narrow view. Ah yes, the mythical beforetime where MRIs could be had for a quarter by your village doctor. In an era before the bankruptcy courts or the modern concept of hospitals.
And it was all covered by insurance in the days when an insurer would charge the same for someone with cholera as they would for someone in perfect health, back before actuarial tables ruined everything.
Back then insurance worked like it was supposed to, before the government intervened. Insurers would insure anyone for the same rate, regardless of risk. Unfortunately since the government got involved they've started trying to make money.
|
On March 22 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 11:13 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 11:08 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:33 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 10:12 Wegandi wrote:On March 22 2017 08:48 Gorsameth wrote:Because the 2 sides, even within the Republican party are to opposed to eachother. The Freedom Caucus where never going to vote for a health care system that brings affordable care for the poor/chronically ill. And the other side cannot vote for a plan that does not provide their constitutions with adequate healthcare. There is no acceptable solution for the Republican Party as a whole, thats why they didn't make an alternative during the last 6 years. Edit: The best shot they probably had was making an actual working improvement and going for the Democrats + decent Republicans. And it would have been a really really long shot to begin with. I forgot, the only solution to the issue of price is Government...obviously in double speak land, being against Government healthcare means you're for higher prices. (if you can't tell, I'm rolling my eyes really strenuously) I mean it is. Insurance can't fix prices being too high, that's literally not a thing that insurance does. Insurance turns irregular high prices into regular low prices through spreading risk. But if the problem is that the risk and the cost are both too high, ie you have a preexisting condition, you cannot lower the cost with insurance. The only way to lower the cost is through forced redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy. That's the unavoidable truth. No, that is not the only way. People have become so accustomed to the current quagmire that they can't even fathom a time when you didn't need insurance except for catastrophic injury due to how cheap healthcare was. The healthcare system wasn't always 90% controlled by the Government via mandates, requirements, impositions, rules and regulations, licensing, etc. Now, is healthcare going to be cheap for everyone (much cheaper than any Government solution and the status-quo)? No, but getting rid of IP/Patent, licensing, mandates (so you know...insurance does what it is supposed to do - evaluate actuarial risk), allowing tax credits for HSA's, allowing people to pool together to buy insurance as a group outside of employment, buying across state lines/more competition, making it easier to build and run hospitals (regulations/rules/etc.) so that there is more competition, etc. Lots of stuff can be done outside of your narrow view. Ah yes, the mythical beforetime where MRIs could be had for a quarter by your village doctor. In an era before the bankruptcy courts or the modern concept of hospitals. And it was all covered by insurance in the days when an insurer would charge the same for someone with cholera as they would for someone in perfect health, back before actuarial tables ruined everything. Back then insurance worked like it was supposed to, before the government intervened. Insurers would insure anyone for the same rate, regardless of risk. Unfortunately since the government got involved they've started trying to make money.
We run on a pure nostalgia based economy, were we pine for simpler times that were in fact pretty fucking terrible. I pine for a simpler time like the 1950s, 60s or 70s when New York and Boston were fuck warzones. But the music was better and people were real. Well, really we filtered out all the shit music and fake people.
|
I have never something to be a misquote more in my entire life. These people are going to get Americans killed.
|
United States43277 Posts
Libertarianism is a fucking cult man. Parents, tell your kids about Ayn Rand before they hear it from someone else.
|
No, give people Ayn Rand books to read. Her novels are the greatest argument against objectivism/Libertarianism that have ever been created. They are fucking terrible.
|
Ayn Rand is like the secret. people like it because it affirms their beliefs and they think it will give them what they want. Unlike Peter Singer who argues much better but struggles to connect with a message of not going on vacation and instead using the money to keep kids in Africa alive (roughly).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
