|
I wish I'd written this, but I didn't. This was posted as a comment on digg.com, and it's quite excellent (strange as that may be in and of itself). I just wish Obama had the balls to put it this way:
"I am a conservative. This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."
|
No one denies that some things the government does/have done are good and necessary and have been beneficial. Though, even with that list, I believe that the government shouldn't really be involved with a lot of the things. Namely, utilities shouldn't be a public monopoly, drugs should be less regulated, EPA should be less powerful, basically many regulations shouldn't be as stringent, the USPS shouldn't even exist, schools shouldn't be a public monopoly, etc.
Sometimes there's a compelling government interest in providing a service; the actual difficult part is discerning which services have that government interest and which don't. For instance, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom gives his arguments (that I'd say a good sect of conservatives agree with) for which services the government should be involved in and which ones they shouldn't.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
This says nothing and is the most ignorant form of argument. You can paint this any way you want. Oh today I was thinking about the nuclear arms the US government used against a foreign country while I drove past the ruins of a city the government couldn't shelter from a predictable weather event.
|
I think the idea you should draw from this is that some things are so important, it would be foolish for the government not to be in charge of it (or at least regulates it with a heavy hand). It goes hand in hand with the idea the government used to have that some things were too important to outsource - like troops in our military. Through the government, there is a much higher degree of accountability than can be provided in the "open" market. The current healthcare situation is a demonstration of just how badly insurance companies have performed as coverage providers, though they have succeeded in raking in obscene amounts of money.
I thin if you read that in the most literal way possible, then YOU are ignorant.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
Right, and therein lies the debate. None of which is applicable to anything contained in the original post.
|
i dont think it was aimed at the efficacy of government regulation as much as the fact that so many idiots complain that public health care would start us down the slippery slope to socialism when really the government already does all this and more.
|
Sigh.
This just brings us back to the misguided debate about whether a private or public health care system would be "better" (and what exactly "better" means in this context, because certainly both systems have advantages and have risks -- denying the risk of any real world system, no matter what that system is, is foolishness, so let's not get into that).
The reality is that a health care system, public or private, can only ever be as good as the policy that defines it. Just like a government, no matter what kind it is, can never be better than the leadership that runs it (in our ignorance, we like to say "political system X is better than Y," but what does that even mean? We say democracy is better than dictatorship, but a good dictator will do a better job than a bad congress -- don't get me wrong, speaking in general I'd rather live in a democracy, but the word "better" here is completely misguided; many nations around the world have failed at democracy and weren't always better off).
I am against the so-called "health care reform." The actual plans for the policy do not seem like a step in the right direction and this policy will be shoved down our throats when I'd rather keep my current insurance coverage.
And for the record, I'm glad Obama doesn't talk this way, because I would have absolutely no respect for the man whatsoever as a human being. That post sounds like something written by a used car salesman. It does not actually discuss the policy of the "reform."
|
On September 19 2009 02:46 Chill wrote: This says nothing and is the most ignorant form of argument. You can paint this any way you want. Oh today I was thinking about the nuclear arms the US government used against a foreign country while I drove past the ruins of a city the government couldn't shelter from a predictable weather event. regardless of whether this is a legitimate argument or not, you have to admit that it was very clever despite its tongue-in-cheek tone. and as for my opinion on the argument itself, i thought it was a good satire of the conservative/republican train of thought.
|
Whether or not, health care is necessary for the government to provide is very easy to explain why it is.
If everybody was happy, and by everybody I mean, roughly 80% with the current system, then why would we be having this debate.
Is not the very act of having a debate over the health care system. I showed to bet the health care system is flawed. And what historically has been done to assist them that the government deems that the free market is unable to provide.
Simple they provide it themselves. Although arguably, they tend to forget about it after a while, such as our roads and bridges (for those who do not know according to, I forget a group of civil engineers that have a proper name, I just cannot remember it. They rate America's roads and bridges with an average of about C. that the structure of America is rated at C, America is a C. student and infrastructure, why is it because our government has a tendency to "if it is not broken. It still works “mentality). But keep in mind; they are trying to get our best interests, because if we are happy they get reelected. And they are doing her job.
Basically Reform needs to happen the problem is. Can you keep the companies on this without having a public option? Could we regulate the so-called too big to fail banks properly? We honestly cannot regulate quality the system is too slow to respond in this ill-fated sale, if we just regulate.
|
On September 19 2009 03:33 redtooth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 02:46 Chill wrote: This says nothing and is the most ignorant form of argument. You can paint this any way you want. Oh today I was thinking about the nuclear arms the US government used against a foreign country while I drove past the ruins of a city the government couldn't shelter from a predictable weather event. regardless of whether this is a legitimate argument or not, you have to admit that it was very clever despite its tongue-in-cheek tone. and as for my opinion on the argument itself, i thought it was a good satire of the conservative/republican train of thought.
Maybe for the Bill O'Reilly's of the world, but for conservatives and Republicans in general? I don't think so...
For instance, there are a lot of conservatives who feel that services such as the USPS should be privatized. NASA is a bit different because it can and does deal with matters of national security. Many conservatives feel that the government should be as small as possible, primarily focusing on defense and maintaining the law, and little else.
When I read the OP, it struck me that I couldn't figure out what issue the person is supposedly "conservative" on.
|
USPS, public roads, NASA, public water supply...where are the examples of things the government runs well? USPS has never turned a profit while UPS consistently does despite being at an extreme disadvantage due to extra regulations. Yes public roads exist and we drive on them because we have to, but does anyone actual think the government does a good job maintaining or designing them? NASA has gone nowhere in the past 30 years, and has recently started outsourcing for rockets to private companies because it is CHEAPER and BETTER. Public water is terrible. Everything else in the article is just government "regulation" which of course it already does with insurance companies. So by that logic health insurance is already run by the government.
|
Since when is profit the supreme measure of success? Some things have an inherent ethical conflict with the motive of profit, in my opinion.
|
On September 19 2009 02:44 theonemephisto wrote: No one denies that some things the government does/have done are good and necessary and have been beneficial. Though, even with that list, I believe that the government shouldn't really be involved with a lot of the things. Namely, utilities shouldn't be a public monopoly, drugs should be less regulated, EPA should be less powerful, basically many regulations shouldn't be as stringent, the USPS shouldn't even exist, schools shouldn't be a public monopoly, etc.
Sometimes there's a compelling government interest in providing a service; the actual difficult part is discerning which services have that government interest and which don't. For instance, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom gives his arguments (that I'd say a good sect of conservatives agree with) for which services the government should be involved in and which ones they shouldn't.
LOL are you serious? Drug companies would sell you poison, then the antidote if they could get away with it.
Drug company CEOs complain that the FDA is too strict, because they want evidence that their drugs ACTUALLY WORK. Boo fucking hoo.
The reason they still want SOME evidence for late-term cancer drugs is because companies could get away with selling anything to desperate dying people and get rich exploiting them (see all the miracle cure peddlers).
|
United States42674 Posts
The flaw of a private system is that there will be effective treatments which are good value for money and would save society as a whole money which are not used because the individual cannot afford them. The flaw of a public system is that there will be less effective treatments which the rationing body has designated bad value for public money which the individual could otherwise afford but cannot choose to have. A mixed system (public provision with a non subsidised private option) alleviates most of this problem by allowing the rich to have private care if they forfeit the money they contributed through tax to the public option but there will be a few on the cusp who cannot afford private care because of the higher taxes funding a public service.
That said, I am in favour of public healthcare. It sucks to hear a doctor say "There's an experimental treatment which has shown results in a small minority of cases but it's been judged as insufficiently effective to use in an attempt to save Grandpa's life". It sucks way more to hear "There's a treatment which will work but it's expensive and you can't afford it. We'll provide emergency care each time he crashes but not the preventative care to deal with his condition". Rationing is the lesser of two evils.
That said, we had a huge discussion on this a month ago with a lot of long posts filled with good arguments. Making a new one purely for the OPs straw man is kinda pointless.
|
On September 19 2009 04:08 Louder wrote: Since when is profit the supreme measure of success? Some things have an inherent ethical conflict with the motive of profit, in my opinion. LOL 0/10
|
dont worry america, your health system got no flaws, its only the most expensive health care in the world, and who gives a fk about the poor that cant aford them.
someone should make a pic of "Money or GTFO"
|
On September 19 2009 04:29 uiCk wrote: dont worry america, your health system got no flaws, its only the most expensive health care in the world, and who gives a fk about the poor that cant aford them.
someone should make a pic of "Money or GTFO" yes America is probably the most expensive health care system there is but guess what, if you have the money to get treatment you can get it. It is interesting you bring it up, because it was that Canada or Canadians. America hears a lot of stories about Canadian health care system where people had to wait a long time to get a liver or kidney transplant or something like that. Basically people dying because they had to wait for something that they did not really have the way for America. Of course now I do believe the Canadian system is reformed to if you can pay for it yourself. You can get it done in a timely manner , which is not single-payer, but still it is a public option
|
|
On September 19 2009 04:33 Saddened Izzy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 04:29 uiCk wrote: dont worry america, your health system got no flaws, its only the most expensive health care in the world, and who gives a fk about the poor that cant aford them.
someone should make a pic of "Money or GTFO" yes America is probably the most expensive health care system there is but guess what, if you have the money to get treatment you can get it. It is interesting you bring it up, because it was that Canada or Canadians. America hears a lot of stories about Canadian health care system where people had to wait a long time to get a liver or kidney transplant or something like that. Basically people dying because they had to wait for something that they did not really have the way for America. Of course now I do believe the Canadian system is reformed to if you can pay for it yourself. You can get it done in a timely manner , which is not single-payer, but still it is a public option yea you HEAR alot. unfortunatly, canadian system is in need of reform too, because of its multiplying bureaucratic effects inside of the system resulting in money being wasted, not being able to cope with the higher demand of a massive aging population. but at least if you got signs of cancer, even if it might take some time, you will get all possible treatments, no mater if u make 2c a day or a mill, wich is just a little more humane then being able to only aford some treatments or even none.
|
Wow uiCk way to try to make yourself seem more competent by correcting me.
Guess what I will actually type. I have a speech to text program and using speech to text programs are always lacking in perfection. It is interesting you point out cancer because treatment time is very important. So It might take some time is actually very costly to your own health.
|
discussion wont go nowhere until Americans realize somethings wrong with their healthcare, and unfortunately the private sector isn't inclined of changing it.
|
On September 19 2009 04:45 Saddened Izzy wrote: Wow uiCk way to try to make yourself seem more competent by correcting me.
Guess what I will actually type. I have a speech to text program and using speech to text programs are always lacking in perfection. It is interesting you point out cancer because treatment time is very important. So It might take some time is actually very costly to your own health.
we get it. what i dont get is that if u cant afford = death? ;(
edit: in no way was i correcting you, i was just pointing out the fact that alot of americans "hear" about our healthcare (glenn beck? llol) even though you dont live here. isolated case of beurocratic evenets where someone died while waiting for treatment very possible, but this is about US health care, if u wanna debate the effectiveness of Canadian health care open new thread. point is:
you think health care in US is fine? you don't? if you don't, what can u do to fix it?
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 04:45 Saddened Izzy wrote: Wow uiCk way to try to make yourself seem more competent by correcting me.
Guess what I will actually type. I have a speech to text program and using speech to text programs are always lacking in perfection. It is interesting you point out cancer because treatment time is very important. So It might take some time is actually very costly to your own health. Which is why public healthcare systems provide things like free checkups for people at high risk of cancer to catch them early and deal with them when they're more treatable. It saves money too, the cost of 99 wasted tests for every 1 person you save is cheaper than waiting for the symptoms to force them to you and needing expensive drugs and specialist care to treat them. Private has no incentive to try and lower the overall cost of healthcare, nor to engage in preventative care.
|
Insurance companies deny 1 in 5 prescriptions. Insurance CEOs average $34,000,000 per year salary. They actively drop coverage on people who use it / need it most. Many have, in their corporate mission, statements about how denial of care is central to profit. The notion that the market will right all is wrong, and history proves as much. Look back to working conditions during the industrial revolution, for example. The guys "creating jobs" and "powering the economy" were doing so by brutal mistreatment of employees, including children. But they did turn a profit! The insurance companies of today are the same, and arguments against a public option on the basis that government involvement is inherently faulty is spurious at best.
|
the argument that government involvement is inherently faulty is pretty much true. Our government cannot do much of anything perfectly nobody can do this because the government cannot do it perfectly does not mean that the free market can do it better. And that is something people must acknowledge.
you must understand about the American healthcare system is that the insurance companies have the doctors and hospitals and their occupations and clinics, and it is all connected is basically one giant moneymaker
An independent item for public option because I do not see any other way to force them to lower borrowing costs. When they are basically cohorts agreeing to have the price of a certain thing and do the certain practices in the name of what profit of course.
it is also interesting in the US health care debate that there has been little talk about how the CEOs of the companies huge salaries of doctors are paid huge amounts for two exhibits seen. Basically, I have been little talk about payouts, because it comes down to the people pushing a public auction of those people who are. And that is basically what we are fighting about not whether or not health care is necessary. We will knowledge public options are great. Slowly, we have things like Medicare and Medi-Cal but frankly, people do not believe the cost-effective for us to provide that service and fear mongers and dogmatic people. Boy, everybody else into believing that it will dispose further into more debt and a complete failure.
|
On September 19 2009 05:02 Saddened Izzy wrote: the argument that government involvement is inherently faulty is pretty much true.
Evidence?
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On September 19 2009 04:55 Louder wrote: Insurance companies deny 1 in 5 prescriptions. Citation needed.
Insurance CEOs average $34,000,000 per year salary. Citation needed. Irrelevent.
They actively drop coverage on people who use it / need it most. Citation needed. Arbitrary.
Many have, in their corporate mission, statements about how denial of care is central to profit. Citation REALLY needed.
The notion that the market will right all is wrong, and history proves as much. Look back to working conditions during the industrial revolution, for example. The guys "creating jobs" and "powering the economy" were doing so by brutal mistreatment of employees, including children. But they did turn a profit! The insurance companies of today are the same ...
|
On September 19 2009 05:12 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 05:02 Saddened Izzy wrote: the argument that government involvement is inherently faulty is pretty much true. Evidence? simple infrastructure or most of our infrastructure is near 50 years old, and guess what most of it was designed only to last about 50 years with maintenance. And yet our government does not regularly update and maintain it. Our roads and our power grids are all sub-par. places in New England and New York mainly the Northeast, though log system is nearly toxic areas where groundwater leakage and other great listings are common events, and basically turning on tap water is equivalent to showering yourself into the ecoli of course these places are usually small towns and sell it on the main light in the media. The government never be as great in certain areas because they are not looking for profit blessings and more obligation. That is something they can do very well, because they are aching of profit necessarily as the number one goal.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
|
infrastructure is major issue with many gouverments all over the world, has absolutly nothing to do with health care.
|
On September 19 2009 05:22 uiCk wrote: infrastructure is major issue with many gouverments all over the world, has absolutly nothing to do with health care. But it shows how the American government does think long term. And health care is long term =p America used to have the world best in everything infrastructure it what made it so freaking great.Shit things like bridges falling down people never head of that happening in the US scene the like 1920's. It's to make a point that overall can't totally trust the American government to pull though in the long term.. which if you read the earlier post i didn't mean i was against the American government giving a public option it just meant my belief was that it was going to be a very bumpy start.
|
yea well shit needs to change in politics. skepticism wont improve your current situation, though i do believe american government is one of the worlds most corrupt, room for improvement still there. and at the moment. shifting from your current un ethical private system to a gouverment one, probably could not be any worse.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 05:23 Saddened Izzy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 05:22 uiCk wrote: infrastructure is major issue with many gouverments all over the world, has absolutly nothing to do with health care. But it shows how the American government does think long term. And health care is long term =p America used to have the world best in everything infrastructure it what made it so freaking great. It's to make a point that overall can't totally trust the American government to pull though. which if you read the earlier post i didn't mean i was against the American government giving a public option it just meant my belief was that it was going to be a very bumpy start. No. Every Government is bad at infrastructure because it's somewhere they can take money and have no short term bad consequences. You can increase spending on infrastructure in line with inflation and have people go "I guess that makes sense" or you can not mention it at all and go "YAY, TAX CUTS!". Politicians need votes, people don't ask where the money is saved and they won't notice everything is falling apart for a few years. It happened to the British public transport system for decades until everything stopped working at once and a huge overhaul was needed. But that hasn't happened for healthcare because people recognise that when you cut the budget you cut the services and that means doctors for them. Maybe it's because the NHS in the UK is an institution that is politically sacred but if you take money from it for tax cuts people don't think "we can use that extra cash to go private", they think "now I won't get seen as quickly at the hospital". Either way, public healthcare does not suffer the same negligence effect of other less obvious and practical services.
|
glenn beck is on next on fox news, time to get some FACTS about government.
(lol theres a picture linking obama with Che) (lol at linking george soros with socalism scheme/theory)
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
Brilliant original post. Because everyone who is strongly opposed to obamacare (including most physicians) is an all-out anarchist!
Just say to them that the concept of government, after all, has its justifications. That will definitely set them straight.
|
Everybody blames the market for being inefficient in this case.
That is correct. Insurance is an example of market failure.
However, their rationale for what to do is all wrong.
The problem here is this: a) insurers are taking on a risk whenever they take on a new person in their insurance plan. b) as such, they raise rates to compensate for high risks, because they are never 100% sure person X is going to get cancer or not, even if he gets a checkup and everything. c) as a result, healthy people like person Y are not going to have a strong incentive to get insurance because what's the point if you're healthy? They would purchase insurance either later on, when they are more at risk, or when the price is lower. d) As a result, with a less healthy risk pool, insurance companies raise rates again, driving more people out of the market because it exceeds their risk and needs. e) in the end, you have a lot of "low quality" consumers, i.e. sick people. If the insurance company is to stay liquid, let alone afloat, it must control costs somehow. f) it does so by increasing costs of insurance, as well as by cutting the amount that they pay to doctors. Doctors are forced to subscribe to insurance plans to attract patients, and thus they charge uninsured people way more than insured people (and i'm not talking about the copay, i'm talking about the cost of a procedure, total. The cost for an insured person is 300$, and the insurance company pays another 300$ for a certain procedure that one of my family recently undertook. The cost for an uninsured person is $10,000.) g) As a result, uninsured people cannot get healthcare, because it is way too expensive for them to do so. And low income families tend to have worse health outcomes than upper class families, due to the fact that they eat more unhealthy foods, and do not see doctors as much as they would like, due to the high costs. Therefore, the more subtle diseases that cost much more to treat end up emerging among them in higher numbers. When they then try to get insurance, they are obviously refused, because it is equivalent to the insurance company taking on debt.
And here is the problem. It's not "greed" or any of that bullcrap that people say when they come from the left. The left is right, for the wrong reasons, and the right is wrong, for the right reasons. The answer isn't a government takeover of healthcare, because Medicare is a huge reason why healthcare costs are so high, and Medicare is a large part of government healthcare. Since Medicare tends to care for all seniors, and often these seniors require expensive procedures (due to their age), the average expenditure for Medicare persons is quite high. As a result, since Medicare has no incentive to cut costs, and doctors have an incentive to raise costs (because of private insurers), doctors charge Medicare high amounts of money, which is causing the system to become expensive and unstable. Leaving them to the market of insurance, however, is equally bad, as again it would be the market failure that I have described above.
The solution is to make no insurance a viable alternative to insurance. The initial purpose of insurance was to supplement high healthcare costs, such as chemotherapy and the like-it wasn't to subsidize a trip to the doctor for a checkup or to get shots or whatever. The market price for a checkup among doctors who refuse to take insurance is quite low-around $30, which is a far cry from the hundreds that are charged to an insurance company. In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further. And a checkup can help to prevent much more expensive problems from being present in the future. Detecting a cancer right when it starts is much, much cheaper than fighting it when its metastasizing all across the body and when you have symptoms. Right now, only insured people tend to go for a checkup. Make it so uninsured people can go for a checkup, and you'll wipe out those who go to the Emergency room and costs thousands for a minor problem. You'll allow the private market to drive down costs by providing the right incentives. You restore power back into the hands of the doctors, and you also cause the insurance companies to drive down costs to compete with the policies of those without insurance. For expensive procedures, that's what insurance should be used for. You don't get car insurance (aside from the legal ramifications) because you want to get a tune up. You use it in case some jackass totals your car. You don't get house insurance because you want to change the roof. You get it in case some jackass burns down your house. Why should health insurance be any different?
|
On the original post: its ok as a lyrical piece, but not much of an argument. Using this sort of reasoning you argue just about anything. Why not let government make shoes for everyone and call it the "universal shoe reform"? Heck, they ALREADY deliver our mail! Why not have all restaurants be run by the government, so food can be cheaper? I mean, they the government is ALREADY regulating porn on TV, so why not? None of this stuff follows a logical causal chain - it just pairs random observations which are marginally funny but avoid real debate. At the same time, as I said, I can see it as an OK lyrical piece, for people who like that sort of thing.
The discussion digressed into infrastructure. I love Kwark's post about it being an easy place to cut money from. Unfortunately, I do not think things are that simple. The problem goes deeper, as voters simply refuse to back the dedicated revenue streams needed to pay for the stuff they use. For example: a vehicle per mile tax for cars could pay for the roads we use. As a politician you may favor this tax, but good luck ever getting elected proposing it! Instead, we have a gas tax that hasn't been increased since 1993 (its not even a percentage tax, its fixed). Not surprisingly, the highway trust fund (where the gas tax money goes) is broke, and now needs ongoing subsidies. It seems it will get $20bn this year, but this does not say anything about what will happen next year, or the one after that. Nobody has the guts to tackle the real issue here and find a dedicated revenue stream for a long term solution (a vmt tax, or increasing and indexing the gas tax to inflation, etc). This is just an example... but the bottom line is that voter awareness/understanding is part of the problem here.
|
On September 19 2009 06:13 Caller wrote: In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further.
This supply of doctors will be a huge deal in the coming years, especially if you want more people to get regular checkups. I linked to this post before, but can't help doing so again. Required reading really.
|
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism.
|
better yet lets criticize greedy American capitalist corporatist pigs while eating toro
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:13 Caller wrote: Everybody blames the market for being inefficient in this case.
That is correct. Insurance is an example of market failure.
However, their rationale for what to do is all wrong.
The problem here is this: a) insurers are taking on a risk whenever they take on a new person in their insurance plan. b) as such, they raise rates to compensate for high risks, because they are never 100% sure person X is going to get cancer or not, even if he gets a checkup and everything. c) as a result, healthy people like person Y are not going to have a strong incentive to get insurance because what's the point if you're healthy? They would purchase insurance either later on, when they are more at risk, or when the price is lower. d) As a result, with a less healthy risk pool, insurance companies raise rates again, driving more people out of the market because it exceeds their risk and needs. e) in the end, you have a lot of "low quality" consumers, i.e. sick people. If the insurance company is to stay liquid, let alone afloat, it must control costs somehow. f) it does so by increasing costs of insurance, as well as by cutting the amount that they pay to doctors. Doctors are forced to subscribe to insurance plans to attract patients, and thus they charge uninsured people way more than insured people (and i'm not talking about the copay, i'm talking about the cost of a procedure, total. The cost for an insured person is 300$, and the insurance company pays another 300$ for a certain procedure that one of my family recently undertook. The cost for an uninsured person is $10,000.) g) As a result, uninsured people cannot get healthcare, because it is way too expensive for them to do so. And low income families tend to have worse health outcomes than upper class families, due to the fact that they eat more unhealthy foods, and do not see doctors as much as they would like, due to the high costs. Therefore, the more subtle diseases that cost much more to treat end up emerging among them in higher numbers. When they then try to get insurance, they are obviously refused, because it is equivalent to the insurance company taking on debt.
And here is the problem. It's not "greed" or any of that bullcrap that people say when they come from the left. The left is right, for the wrong reasons, and the right is wrong, for the right reasons. The answer isn't a government takeover of healthcare, because Medicare is a huge reason why healthcare costs are so high, and Medicare is a large part of government healthcare. Since Medicare tends to care for all seniors, and often these seniors require expensive procedures (due to their age), the average expenditure for Medicare persons is quite high. As a result, since Medicare has no incentive to cut costs, and doctors have an incentive to raise costs (because of private insurers), doctors charge Medicare high amounts of money, which is causing the system to become expensive and unstable. Leaving them to the market of insurance, however, is equally bad, as again it would be the market failure that I have described above.
The solution is to make no insurance a viable alternative to insurance. The initial purpose of insurance was to supplement high healthcare costs, such as chemotherapy and the like-it wasn't to subsidize a trip to the doctor for a checkup or to get shots or whatever. The market price for a checkup among doctors who refuse to take insurance is quite low-around $30, which is a far cry from the hundreds that are charged to an insurance company. In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further. And a checkup can help to prevent much more expensive problems from being present in the future. Detecting a cancer right when it starts is much, much cheaper than fighting it when its metastasizing all across the body and when you have symptoms. Right now, only insured people tend to go for a checkup. Make it so uninsured people can go for a checkup, and you'll wipe out those who go to the Emergency room and costs thousands for a minor problem. You'll allow the private market to drive down costs by providing the right incentives. You restore power back into the hands of the doctors, and you also cause the insurance companies to drive down costs to compete with the policies of those without insurance. For expensive procedures, that's what insurance should be used for. You don't get car insurance (aside from the legal ramifications) because you want to get a tune up. You use it in case some jackass totals your car. You don't get house insurance because you want to change the roof. You get it in case some jackass burns down your house. Why should health insurance be any different? An excellent post. I agree with most of what you said and I would definitely hail a more effective private healthcare system in the US as a success. While I don't believe you addressed the intrinsic advantages of public over private you succinctly explained why the current system is such a mess.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally...
Seriously, your trolling is peerless lol. I know you make these posts to bait responses but I can't help it.
|
On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela?
|
On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism.
That's an interesting post considering the history of the developments of microwaves, computers, and the internet.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap.
|
On September 19 2009 06:31 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:13 Caller wrote: Everybody blames the market for being inefficient in this case.
That is correct. Insurance is an example of market failure.
However, their rationale for what to do is all wrong.
The problem here is this: a) insurers are taking on a risk whenever they take on a new person in their insurance plan. b) as such, they raise rates to compensate for high risks, because they are never 100% sure person X is going to get cancer or not, even if he gets a checkup and everything. c) as a result, healthy people like person Y are not going to have a strong incentive to get insurance because what's the point if you're healthy? They would purchase insurance either later on, when they are more at risk, or when the price is lower. d) As a result, with a less healthy risk pool, insurance companies raise rates again, driving more people out of the market because it exceeds their risk and needs. e) in the end, you have a lot of "low quality" consumers, i.e. sick people. If the insurance company is to stay liquid, let alone afloat, it must control costs somehow. f) it does so by increasing costs of insurance, as well as by cutting the amount that they pay to doctors. Doctors are forced to subscribe to insurance plans to attract patients, and thus they charge uninsured people way more than insured people (and i'm not talking about the copay, i'm talking about the cost of a procedure, total. The cost for an insured person is 300$, and the insurance company pays another 300$ for a certain procedure that one of my family recently undertook. The cost for an uninsured person is $10,000.) g) As a result, uninsured people cannot get healthcare, because it is way too expensive for them to do so. And low income families tend to have worse health outcomes than upper class families, due to the fact that they eat more unhealthy foods, and do not see doctors as much as they would like, due to the high costs. Therefore, the more subtle diseases that cost much more to treat end up emerging among them in higher numbers. When they then try to get insurance, they are obviously refused, because it is equivalent to the insurance company taking on debt.
And here is the problem. It's not "greed" or any of that bullcrap that people say when they come from the left. The left is right, for the wrong reasons, and the right is wrong, for the right reasons. The answer isn't a government takeover of healthcare, because Medicare is a huge reason why healthcare costs are so high, and Medicare is a large part of government healthcare. Since Medicare tends to care for all seniors, and often these seniors require expensive procedures (due to their age), the average expenditure for Medicare persons is quite high. As a result, since Medicare has no incentive to cut costs, and doctors have an incentive to raise costs (because of private insurers), doctors charge Medicare high amounts of money, which is causing the system to become expensive and unstable. Leaving them to the market of insurance, however, is equally bad, as again it would be the market failure that I have described above.
The solution is to make no insurance a viable alternative to insurance. The initial purpose of insurance was to supplement high healthcare costs, such as chemotherapy and the like-it wasn't to subsidize a trip to the doctor for a checkup or to get shots or whatever. The market price for a checkup among doctors who refuse to take insurance is quite low-around $30, which is a far cry from the hundreds that are charged to an insurance company. In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further. And a checkup can help to prevent much more expensive problems from being present in the future. Detecting a cancer right when it starts is much, much cheaper than fighting it when its metastasizing all across the body and when you have symptoms. Right now, only insured people tend to go for a checkup. Make it so uninsured people can go for a checkup, and you'll wipe out those who go to the Emergency room and costs thousands for a minor problem. You'll allow the private market to drive down costs by providing the right incentives. You restore power back into the hands of the doctors, and you also cause the insurance companies to drive down costs to compete with the policies of those without insurance. For expensive procedures, that's what insurance should be used for. You don't get car insurance (aside from the legal ramifications) because you want to get a tune up. You use it in case some jackass totals your car. You don't get house insurance because you want to change the roof. You get it in case some jackass burns down your house. Why should health insurance be any different? An excellent post. I agree with most of what you said and I would definitely hail a more effective private healthcare system in the US as a success. While I don't believe you addressed the intrinsic advantages of public over private you succinctly explained why the current system is such a mess.
I will now do so 
Public vs. Private.
The Private insurance, as I had mentioned before, in this current environment, tends to end up at market failure. A public plan eliminates the market failure because costs are controlled by allowing the public to accumulate debt. This debt is then paid for by taxes, or by selling it to China through treasury bills. As a method to eliminate market failure, a public option is excellent-indeed, Medicare was used to eliminate the market failure of the insurance companies that specifically affected seniors. However, because of the inherent nature of incentives, there is no incentive to control costs in a public plan-as they will be distributed to tax payers-and there is also no incentive for people to be healthy and see the doctor often-because they have a secure safety net in the form of a public plan of insurance.
Of course, since not all goals are strictly economic, and there is no way to quantify the amount of lives that have been saved as a result, one could argue that this is a justifiable sacrifice to make. However, I believe that not only can we keep this level of care, but that we can make it far more economical, by the solutions that I have explained in my previous post. Unfortunately, because people are very fixed in their opinions, we are unlikely to see this kind of progress any time soon.
If I had to choose between a public option and the status quo in America, I would choose the public option. However, if I have more than those two lone choices, I would reject the public option, because it is uneconomical.
|
On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in.
|
On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government?
Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government?
|
Health care in the USA is more a non-system than a system.
Biggest problems in health care in the USA = overutilization due to profit motive and defensive medicine (Docs funcitoning as co-investors for private hospitals, taking payments in return for admitting patients... etc). Lack of readily available primary and preventative care (An estimated 52% of hospital visits occur because individuals cannot get a timely appointment wtih a primary care doc, and our feeble 33% of primary care docs is too weak compared to the 52 percent seen in other countries). Overspecialization. The cost of drugs is greater than anywhere else (Don't give me the B.S. pharma needs the money for research. Anyone whose actually looked at how the average pharma co. manages their funds knows this is horseshit) Excessive spending on end of life care (Other countries are much better at utilizing hospice facilities for end of life care). Lack of responsible laws governing the sale of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment (I get free lunch from a pharm rep every time I go to a preceptor). Lack of legisilation controling health care profits (Many countries limit the profit margins of drug and private insurance companies to 0.5-1% while they remain unbounded in the USA). Also we need to remove the influence of pharma and hospitals on Washington. These groups should not be able to make politcal contributions and legislators should not be allowed to invest in these institutions.
Honestly health care is soo screwed up in the United States expanding it will only feed into a broken system that needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. This is why I don't support the current legislation and neither does the AMA. Specifically we need completely restructured access, remove profit motive (like they do in the Mayo Clinic paying all docs a salary and remaining non-profit) - creation of more primary care training programs - better utilization of end of life care - government negociated and controled drug prices and pharma profits - and death of the republican party who oppose everything related to sensible reform.
|
On September 19 2009 06:50 aRod wrote: Health care in the USA is more a non-system than a system.
Biggest problems in health care in the USA = overutilization due to profit motive and defensive medicine (Docs funcitoning as co-investors for private hospitals, taking payments in return for admitting patients... etc). Lack of readily available primary and preventative care (An estimated 52% of hospital visits occur because individuals cannot get a timely appointment wtih a primary care doc, and our feeble 33% of primary care docs is too weak compared to the 52 percent seen in other countries). Overspecialization. The cost of drugs is greater than anywhere else (Don't give me the B.S. pharma needs the money for research. Anyone whose actually looked at how the average pharma co. manages their funds knows this is horseshit) Excessive spending on end of life care (Other countries are much better at utilizing hospice facilities for end of life care). Lack of responsible laws governing the sale of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment (I get free lunch from a pharm rep every time I go to a preceptor). Lack of legisilation controling health care profits (Many countries limit the profit margins of drug and private insurance companies to 0.5-1% while they remain unbounded in the USA).
Honestly health care is soo screwed up in the United States expanding it will only feed into a broken system that needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. This is why I don't support the current legislation and neither does the AMA. Specifically, completely restructure access, remove profit motive (like they do in the Mayo Clinic paying all docs a salary and remaining non-profit) - creating more primary care training programs - better utilization of end of life care - government negociate and controled drug prices and pharma profits - and death of the republican party who oppose everything. take a look at my argument and see if it makes sense before you keep blaming profit motive
|
On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government?
If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay.
|
United States42674 Posts
I wouldn't say I was any more reckless because I know I have public healthcare. Nobody likes to go to hospital etc. Furthermore because they want to reduce overall healthcare costs there is more preventative care, not less, from subsidised nicotene patches to reminders sent to high risk groups to get checkups. Also hospitals don't get a blank cheque, the Government sets aside however much they want to spend on healthcare, that gets rationed by experts in a number of fields (medicine, social studies, economists) who attempt to judge how best to spend it to get the maximum healthcare benefit. A hospital will know how much a hip replacement will cost on average and how many they should get a year on average. Costs don't spiral out of control because the less effective treatments don't happen.
It is my belief that a public system is more efficient because of the diminishing returns in medicine. Healthcare costs as much as a person is willing to spend, they will always be able to get an improvement by putting more money in, it'll just be less as the amount of money increases. This makes a private system in which individuals spend money unevenly inherently inefficient whereas a public system with rationing can treat all the efficient (high healthcare gain, low monetary cost) people first and move up the scale to wherever their budget cutoff is. I also subscribe to the moral argument for society looking after people but I suspect you're aware of that and see no value in discussing it.
|
On September 19 2009 04:18 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 02:44 theonemephisto wrote: No one denies that some things the government does/have done are good and necessary and have been beneficial. Though, even with that list, I believe that the government shouldn't really be involved with a lot of the things. Namely, utilities shouldn't be a public monopoly, drugs should be less regulated, EPA should be less powerful, basically many regulations shouldn't be as stringent, the USPS shouldn't even exist, schools shouldn't be a public monopoly, etc.
Sometimes there's a compelling government interest in providing a service; the actual difficult part is discerning which services have that government interest and which don't. For instance, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom gives his arguments (that I'd say a good sect of conservatives agree with) for which services the government should be involved in and which ones they shouldn't. LOL are you serious? Drug companies would sell you poison, then the antidote if they could get away with it. Drug company CEOs complain that the FDA is too strict, because they want evidence that their drugs ACTUALLY WORK. Boo fucking hoo. The reason they still want SOME evidence for late-term cancer drugs is because companies could get away with selling anything to desperate dying people and get rich exploiting them (see all the miracle cure peddlers). First, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not advocating getting rid of ALL regulation. But the current process adds millions to billions of dollars (both implicit and explicit) of costs to each new drug and keep tons of potentially life-saving drugs off of the market.
I trust in people and their doctors to be able to analyze the evidence and decide on courses of treatment on their own, at least to a degree. Sure, some rich early-users will get screwed by some drug companies peddling quack cures, but if some desperate rich guy wants to pay that much for any chance at saving his life, I'll welcome the information he provides me on the efficacy of the drug in question and move on.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. I don't see how that in any way relates to anything I said. You seem to be confused about argument structure. The RESPONSE should in some WAY relate to the arguMENT at hAnD.
|
On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard
Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself.
|
It's probably a mistake for me to make a post in this kind of thread since it's a heated topic - that is, it's the kind of topic where people are fervently arguing wrong answers to misdirected questions.
I'll venture a few quantitative responses anyway. First, some guy previously mentioned that we have a quick and effective organ transplant system in the US of A and that this owes itself to our free market system. This is completely wrong. In fact, the converse is true.
Our system of organ transplants (kidneys, livers, hearts) is complete shit, and the reason for this is that we have a government run system riddled with flaws.
The relevant acts are: The National Organ Transplant Act and The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.
In brief, the major problems in our organ transplant system stem from these government regulations because they outlaw the use of market-clearing prices. The current situation is that these acts require all transplanted organs in the United States come from either cadaveric donors or non-market solutions, i.e. altruistic donations.
The culpable legislation here was created for ethical reasons: in particular, the notion that it is unethical to have people pay for organs.
This is (perhaps not so obviously) a case of good old incompetence and human fuckery; Particularly because it is not only inefficient, but also morally misguided. Why should it be illegal for someone to sell their organ which then goes to someone in need?
Let's recognize the good that the transplanted organ will do the other person. In the case of many transplants, the recipient's life hangs in the balance, a pretty big deal. Moreover, in the case of the simplest and most successful transplant, the kidney, the recipient will be freed of extremely expensive and extremely painful dialysis treatments.
Normally you can't purchase extra lives, but in this special case you can buy an extra life and a better life for the organ's recipient.
What's wrong with the current system? Although I don't currently have the figures with me, at the time of the book's publication there were thousands of people waiting for an organ transplant and the shortage of transplantable organs was growing. That is, even accounting for the deaths of people on the list who could have been rescued, the shortage of transplantable organs was and is increasing. Simply put, without particular functioning organs you die. So that's the problem.
It's clear and indisputable that having a market-clearing price would cause a huge increase in the supply of available transplantable organs (the quantity supplied at a market clearing price would be much higher than the quantity demanded at a price of zero). So what's immoral about a market-clearing price for organs? In the best advocated system, Organ Donation Reform not only is there nothing wrong with using a market-clearing price, but it's better in every regard.
Important facts:
1 The government would actually pay the market clearing price, meaning that the service would be equally available to everyone. (Thus there would not be any meaningful rich/poor distinction)
2 Using a market clearing price would dissolve black markets that currently exist for organs. Note: black markets are created when market clearing prices aren't used, and there are black markets for organs currently. Chinese political prisoners are one of the more brutal cases but I'm sure almost everyone reading this is aware of the other cases.
3 The projected costs of kidney transplants, including the forecasted price of the organ, is roughly the cost of 3 years of dialysis (which has a lot of drawbacks compared with a transplanted organ). Note: kidney transplants would benefit the most under the improved system because they are the most successful of major organ transplants and the least costly to perform.
4 Currently uncompensated donors would receive compensation for the good they provide.
And as it were, the list goes on but suffice to say that the case is made that we could vastly improve our current system without the slightest trade-off - that is, the improved system is better in every regard.
In any case this is a good example of how the government could be put to great use in the health industry but instead makes the situation worse than if the free market were unregulated. Even in an unregulated market, there would be no black market and there would not be the impressive shortage of organs that exists today. Even if the organs were going to those able to pay the highest prices, at least some lives would still be saved that are currently not saved (though it is worth mentioning that many wealthy Americans go abroad to seek organ transplants which is part of how black markets are funded in other nations).
This is just one of a number of markets where real government incompetence creates a worse situation than the free market alternative, even though an ideal government could provide a socially optimal solution better than the free market alternative.
When you say some things are too important to be left to the government, it's important to make sure that the government isn't fucking things up in the first place. As your example shows, the government is involved to some extent in pretty much everything, so when something's fucked up, the answer is rarely "the government should handle this." More often when it comes to economic issues the answer is "the free market should handle this," but often enough the answer is "some combination of the two." Most often of all the answer is "it depends."
|
On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself.
I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me.
By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position.
|
United States42674 Posts
So you're advocating the Government paying a set fee to organ donors (or their families if deceased) simply to increase the supply and therefore the overall healthcare of the nation? As long as the cost isn't passed onto the recipient of the organ I don't have a moral problem with it (organs shouldn't be bought, they should be earned). I can see a one off cost for an organ being cheaper than years of treatment for the lack of an organ which would lower overall healthcare costs. That said, I don't believe there's any great organ crisis in our public system. When you register with a doctor one of the questions on the card is what you want done with your organs if you die, everyone I've asked has said they don't mind donating them.
|
On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position.
Yay for American mythology.
|
On September 19 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote: I wouldn't say I was any more reckless because I know I have public healthcare. Nobody likes to go to hospital etc. Furthermore because they want to reduce overall healthcare costs there is more preventative care, not less, from subsidised nicotene patches to reminders sent to high risk groups to get checkups. Also hospitals don't get a blank cheque, the Government sets aside however much they want to spend on healthcare, that gets rationed by experts in a number of fields (medicine, social studies, economists) who attempt to judge how best to spend it to get the maximum healthcare benefit. A hospital will know how much a hip replacement will cost on average and how many they should get a year on average. Costs don't spiral out of control because the less effective treatments don't happen.
It is my belief that a public system is more efficient because of the diminishing returns in medicine. Healthcare costs as much as a person is willing to spend, they will always be able to get an improvement by putting more money in, it'll just be less as the amount of money increases. This makes a private system in which individuals spend money unevenly inherently inefficient whereas a public system with rationing can treat all the efficient (high healthcare gain, low monetary cost) people first and move up the scale to wherever their budget cutoff is. I also subscribe to the moral argument for society looking after people but I suspect you're aware of that and see no value in discussing it. While nobody enjoys going to the doctor or going to the hospital, the fact is that there is no economic curb on demand for people that have insurance. Normally, price would control how often people go to the doctor. However, without price (as it is covered in insurance) demand goes up while supply remains the same. While I seriously doubt that the long lines are as big of a problem as some people make them out to be, there will be lines as a result. In addition, to make up for the high demand, doctors will try to raise the price of procedures as much as they can. Although I agree that a public option does encourage more preventative care in the sense that you advocate, I don't believe that it work as well in a more heterogeneous country like the United States. In the case of states, however, like Massachusetts, I think a public option would work better, as it is more localized and homogeneous than say Massachusetts and Texas. One really good solution to this problem is to increase supply, but to be frank the AMA is a very powerful lobbying group that artificially restricts the amount of new medical students, and thus supply isn't likely to go up any time soon.
In my personal opinion, the belief that medical research is providing diminishing returns is flawed. It's not that we're getting less research done, it's that there is no profit incentive to cure. As it stands, big pharmaceutical companies have patents on what I would call "chronic" treatments. The reason I call them chronic treatments is because they don't actually cure anything. Take Coumadin, for instance. Coumadin is a widely prescribed blood-thinner, used to treat high blood pressure. It generates tons of revenue every year. However, there are methods in question that may treat high blood pressure completely-for instance, by the stimulating glands to produce more or less of certain hormones that control blood pressure. A cure would end the use of Coumadin, as why would one need to take something constantly when they can just undergo a procedure that would end their problem? That's just it: there is no economic incentive, due to the patent system, for Big Pharma to produce cures vs. chronic treatments. Why the hell do we need Viagra, for instance, when instead we could have cured MRSA? The answer is because its more profitable at this time, due to patents. If we reworked the patent system, and gave smaller pharmaceutical companies more relaxed regulations, we would bring in an effective competitor against larger pharmaceutical corporations. And since the larger companies are currently heavily invested into promoting their chronic products, smaller companies would be interested in breaking the market. I actually have a private equity business plan set up for this eventuality  In any case, with new cures, we can not only satisfy but lower demand as healthy people no longer have as large of a demand for healthcare. By lowering demand, we also lower cost.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. It's an old bit of paper which has no real relevance to the realities of modern America and if your country wasn't so divided that any consensus is impossible you'd rewrite it to reflect your new priorities, responsibilities and beliefs. The idea that you run your country based upon the writings of people who couldn't have begun to imagine it is absurd. Yes, they were pretty clever guys and they did a decent job for a constitution in the 18th century but America has changed beyond all recognition and they're not around to update it for you. Rather than insist its as relevant now as it was then, despite the fact that the 21st century society is alien by the standards of just one hundred years ago, you should just move on. I'm reasonably sure if you went back in time and asked them if the constitution should be adhered to long after it became irrelevant they'd laugh and say that the spirit of the constitution should be upheld but the application should be twisted to the context.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap. Europe is like a convicted murderer who tries to give his life a new meaning by going on an aggressive moralistic crusade against masturbation. Yes, American conservatives are bad bad people! But perhaps the "cultured" thing to do would be to mind your own business.
|
On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology. 
Sigh...
|
On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. good less spam in the chat I apologize for the insult, however, but I've had to deal with so many of them that it hurts my head.
|
On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote: [quote] Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally...
r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh...
Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity.
That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality.
EDIT: Actually, I've not seen a textbook retarded enough to make any claims about equal opportunity being a goal behind the Constitution.
|
@ Caller
I completely agree with what you said that insurance is an example of market failure. However, did you know during the 80's when private HMOs were on the rise, we actually saw a decrease in health care costs? At the time most hospitals were small private institutions, not the combined conglomerates we see today. HMOs could send their patients to different hospitals forcing hospitals to compete by lowering their rates. Multiple HMOs working in the same region had the factors required for market competition to work (No monopoly). Local hospitals reacted by banding together and joining up to control the market share in a particular region and raise prices. HMOs could not afford to send people 100s of miles away, nor would the local population accept this and the HMOs had to pay the hospitals higher prices. This lead to the decline of HMOs in the early 90s as well as consumer rejection of managed care. I know this is only one example, but it is another example of how the market adapts and health care cost rise.
My biggest problem is not the profit motive, but conflict of interest and profit motive. I also don't think excessive profits should be allowed when you're dealing with peoples health. But thats simply my virtue ethics kicking in. Doctors should NOT be allowed to invest in hospitals or other practices, recieve gifts/payments from pharmaceutical companies or other doctors/hosptials/providers. This conflict of interests leads doctors to prescribe particular medications (when generic is just as effective), increases the cost of medical equipment, increases the overuse of medical care, and waste billions annually.
|
On September 19 2009 07:19 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote: [quote] r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh... Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity. That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality.
Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers/framers of the constitution are evil?
|
United States42674 Posts
I didn't mean medical research providing diminishing returns. I meant healthcare funding. You can always spend more money on your care and get a return on it. From paying the best experts to double check your test results just in case they see something that might buy you a few more days of life to building a new wing of the hospital so you know 100% it's MRSA free. The first few dollars of healthcare spending have a huge impact, a few cheap immunisations can add years to your life. But each dollar spent adds less and less time to your life. In a private system you have a few people spending money wastefully to add a few extra days while that same money would add months for someone else. That is simply inefficient.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 07:14 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap. Europe is like a convicted murderer who tries to give his life a new meaning by going on an aggressive moralistic crusade against masturbation. Yes, American conservatives are bad bad people! But perhaps the "cultured" thing to do would be to mind your own business. HnR)hT is like a poorly educated person who tries to frame weak analogies that would be far easier to argue against if they made sense. Their vagueness is their only asset and once this has been realised they can be dismissed out of hand. Also he touches children inappropriately.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 07:24 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote: [quote] Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh... Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity. That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality. Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers/framers of the constitution are evil? Oh man.
|
On September 19 2009 07:16 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. good less spam in the chat I apologize for the insult, however, but I've had to deal with so many of them that it hurts my head. Your apology is almost as bad as the one from Combat-ex... You insult me AGAIN before apologizing? Are you serious?
|
On September 19 2009 07:29 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:24 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote: [quote] You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh... Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity. That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality. Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers/framers of the constitution are evil? Oh man. Apparently you didn't see the sarcasm because you're so deep in you ideology. I was being sarcastic because you sound like a conspiracy nut.
|
United States42674 Posts
On September 19 2009 07:29 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:29 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:24 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote: [quote] Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government?
Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh... Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity. That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality. Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers/framers of the constitution are evil? Oh man. Apparently you didn't see the sarcasm because you're so deep in you ideology. I was being sarcastic because you sound like a conspiracy nut. When people think so little of you they confuse your sarcasm for serious posts it's not them you should be questioning, it's yourself. Just out of curiousity, what is my ideology? I wasn't aware I had one.
|
On September 19 2009 07:32 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:29 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:29 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:24 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote: [quote]
If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh... Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity. That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality. Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers/framers of the constitution are evil? Oh man. Apparently you didn't see the sarcasm because you're so deep in you ideology. I was being sarcastic because you sound like a conspiracy nut. When people think so little of you they confuse your sarcasm for serious posts it's not them you should be questioning, it's yourself. Just out of curiousity, what is my ideology? I wasn't aware I had one. WOW you REALLY didn't get it.
|
On September 19 2009 07:28 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:14 HnR)hT wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap. Europe is like a convicted murderer who tries to give his life a new meaning by going on an aggressive moralistic crusade against masturbation. Yes, American conservatives are bad bad people! But perhaps the "cultured" thing to do would be to mind your own business. HnR)hT is like a poorly educated person who tries to frame weak analogies that would be far easier to argue against if they made sense. Their vagueness is their only asset and once this has been realised they can be dismissed out of hand. Also he touches children inappropriately.
Ht is pretty out there... he says some of the dumbest shit on this forum in political / religious discussions.
To the guy who talked about HMOs.... cause and correlation are not equivalent. HMOs can in no way drive down health care costs. By definition, their business practices raise the costs. HMOs were founded on the basis that they are for-profit and focused on denying as much care as possible. A decrease in perceived cost would be the temporary result of less care being given and statistical manipulation, nothing more.
|
WOW u really need to STFU and go read glenns beck arguing with idiots since u seem to have adopted some of HIS ideologies, and let real arguments flow in here, instead of what uve been reduced to: one liners. edit: was meant for the hurtmybackho
|
ignore him hes trolling like no tomorrow as an experience troll i can recognize my own kind
As for your previous comment:
My bad, I misinterpreted what you said. Yes, I believe that as of right now it is true. However, I also happen to believe that certain medical procedures may cause that trend to reverse. For instance, I know of at least 6 different methods and approaches that may, for one, reduce the rate of aging. This in turn delays the onset of those expensive procedures and helps to make healthcare more economical. Of course, at this time we don't have those methods, so I concur with your current point. But I don't see why we can't accommodate everybody-we just need to expand supply.
|
On September 19 2009 07:33 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:32 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:29 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:29 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:24 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 07:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote: [quote] good lord another paultard
Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position. Yay for American mythology.  Sigh... Sorry, but the framers, much less the founding fathers as a whole, were not all like-minded omni-benevolent figures attempting to do right by everyone in the states and guarantee equality of opportunity. That's what you'll find in middle school textbooks, but it was not the reality. Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers/framers of the constitution are evil? Oh man. Apparently you didn't see the sarcasm because you're so deep in you ideology. I was being sarcastic because you sound like a conspiracy nut. When people think so little of you they confuse your sarcasm for serious posts it's not them you should be questioning, it's yourself. Just out of curiousity, what is my ideology? I wasn't aware I had one. WOW you REALLY didn't get it.
I didn't see the sarcasm because it appears to be even more fucking stupid when read that way.
|
On September 19 2009 07:37 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:28 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 HnR)hT wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap. Europe is like a convicted murderer who tries to give his life a new meaning by going on an aggressive moralistic crusade against masturbation. Yes, American conservatives are bad bad people! But perhaps the "cultured" thing to do would be to mind your own business. HnR)hT is like a poorly educated person who tries to frame weak analogies that would be far easier to argue against if they made sense. Their vagueness is their only asset and once this has been realised they can be dismissed out of hand. Also he touches children inappropriately. Ht is pretty out there... he says some of the dumbest shit on this forum in political / religious discussions. To the guy who talked about HMOs.... cause and correlation are not equivalent. HMOs can in no way drive down health care costs. By definition, their business practices raise the costs. HMOs were founded on the basis that they are for-profit and focused on denying as much care as possible. A decrease in perceived cost would be the temporary result of less care being given and statistical manipulation, nothing more. Actually, you're completely wrong. HMOs were founded as non-profit organizations and they were focused on giving as much care as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973 for more details.
|
On September 19 2009 07:45 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:37 Louder wrote:On September 19 2009 07:28 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 HnR)hT wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap. Europe is like a convicted murderer who tries to give his life a new meaning by going on an aggressive moralistic crusade against masturbation. Yes, American conservatives are bad bad people! But perhaps the "cultured" thing to do would be to mind your own business. HnR)hT is like a poorly educated person who tries to frame weak analogies that would be far easier to argue against if they made sense. Their vagueness is their only asset and once this has been realised they can be dismissed out of hand. Also he touches children inappropriately. Ht is pretty out there... he says some of the dumbest shit on this forum in political / religious discussions. To the guy who talked about HMOs.... cause and correlation are not equivalent. HMOs can in no way drive down health care costs. By definition, their business practices raise the costs. HMOs were founded on the basis that they are for-profit and focused on denying as much care as possible. A decrease in perceived cost would be the temporary result of less care being given and statistical manipulation, nothing more. Actually, you're completely wrong. HMOs were founded as non-profit organizations and they were focused on giving as much care as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973 for more details.
That's not entirely accurate, and you know it 
Kaiser Permanente led the charge for the creation of government sponsored, for profit health "care", and Nixon was on board with it. There's more to the story than just the HMO Act of 1973 :|
|
On September 19 2009 10:03 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 07:45 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 07:37 Louder wrote:On September 19 2009 07:28 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 07:14 HnR)hT wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote: Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap. Europe is like a convicted murderer who tries to give his life a new meaning by going on an aggressive moralistic crusade against masturbation. Yes, American conservatives are bad bad people! But perhaps the "cultured" thing to do would be to mind your own business. HnR)hT is like a poorly educated person who tries to frame weak analogies that would be far easier to argue against if they made sense. Their vagueness is their only asset and once this has been realised they can be dismissed out of hand. Also he touches children inappropriately. Ht is pretty out there... he says some of the dumbest shit on this forum in political / religious discussions. To the guy who talked about HMOs.... cause and correlation are not equivalent. HMOs can in no way drive down health care costs. By definition, their business practices raise the costs. HMOs were founded on the basis that they are for-profit and focused on denying as much care as possible. A decrease in perceived cost would be the temporary result of less care being given and statistical manipulation, nothing more. Actually, you're completely wrong. HMOs were founded as non-profit organizations and they were focused on giving as much care as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973 for more details. That's not entirely accurate, and you know it  Kaiser Permanente led the charge for the creation of government sponsored, for profit health "care", and Nixon was on board with it. There's more to the story than just the HMO Act of 1973 :| The key portion of that is the line "government sponsored." And Kaiser Pemanante + Nixon led to the HMO Act of 1973. As so stated from that clip, from Sicko (Michael Moore), and according to the Wikipedia summary of Sicko,
The origins of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 are presented using a taped conversation between John Ehrlichman and President Richard Nixon on February 17, 1971; Ehrlichman is heard telling Nixon that "...the less care they give them, the more money they make", a plan that Nixon remarked "fine" and "not bad". Also, the HMO Act of 1973 was already being floated around as an idea at that time, being advocated by the left-wing as a way to lower health insurance costs for everybody, through a government subsidy. As we all know, we got it in the pooper as a result.
It was initially supposed to help provide support for non-profit HMOs, but ended up screwing everybody over as a result.
|
A few points...on the OP there are plenty of things the government does in the US, that doesn't mean they do it Well.
to the more specific Healthcare will always have to be denied, the question is who sets the criteria for denying care? who pays for the care?
The answer to both of those questions should be the same
If it is the government, then you have the problems of lack of choice and tyrrany of the majority If it is individuals, then they have the problems of the random factor of medical care needs
If it is an insurance type organization, then the problem is difficulty of making an understandable contract as to the value of healthcare to be provided as well as the fact that medical problems aren't the same as your house burning down... they are problems that linger for a long time both before and after 'discovery'.
That is also the problem with malpractice insurance.
It might be worthwhile to have a "federal medical standards board" that recommends generic 'best practices' and evaluates the probable Value of certain medical care options. This might make insurance plans a bit more comprehensible, making it more like a real market. It could also make malpractice insurance cheaper.
|
|
|
|