Health Care Bill passed the House - Page 21

On November 13 2009 19:40 Choros wrote:
That public health care (or a public insurance option which is a scaled back version) is useful and appropriate is self evident as any person from a nation with such a system will tell you. Public health care reduces the cost of private health insurance my making the market more competitive, this is not a theory but a fact. Public health care is the only solution to Americas health care woes that are bankrupting the country the only problem is that Obama's plan will make things worse.

Obama's health bill was written by the Health industry themselves. This is why Business will get fined for not purchasing over priced health care (thus making demand more price inelastic allowing insurance providers to jack up prices). This is also why Obama is taxing Business who provide coverage that is 'too good'.

Sure Obama is making it illegal to refuse insurance coverage to people with preexisting conditions but all Insurance companies will do is increase prices so people cant afford it anyway thus while being 'legal' there is no effective difference as far as coverage is concerned.

Obama recently accepted $80 Billion from Drug companies to use for advertising in exchange for him not doing nothing to reduce drug prices http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/pharma-deal-with-white-ho_n_353499.html.

It would be nice if the Obama administration had the best interests of the people at heart. It is not difficult to create workable policies to solve the problems America has, the only problem is that his administration is completely corrupt and in the pocket of the corporations. The best that can be hoped for at this point is gridlock.

On November 13 2009 17:00 Velr wrote:
Just how hard exactly do you have to work to earn 10-200 times more than another hard working person? Sorry, i'm all for getting good pays for good work, but if someone is working his ass off for let's say 3000 credits and another one is working his ass off but has made some *smarter* decisions when choosing his carreer and is now earning 100'000 credits while not being better at his job as the other dude, something is wrong.

I'm all for better earnings for higher qualified people, but no one can tell me that there is any sane reasoning in any job on this entire world that justifies someone earning 15-1XX times more than the average employee of the same firm.

On November 13 2009 19:40 Choros wrote:
That public health care (or a public insurance option which is a scaled back version) is useful and appropriate is self evident as any person from a nation with such a system will tell you. Public health care reduces the cost of private health insurance my making the market more competitive, this is not a theory but a fact. Public health care is the only solution to Americas health care woes that are bankrupting the country the only problem is that Obama's plan will make things worse.

Obama's health bill was written by the Health industry themselves. This is why Business will get fined for not purchasing over priced health care (thus making demand more price inelastic allowing insurance providers to jack up prices). This is also why Obama is taxing Business who provide coverage that is 'too good'.

Sure Obama is making it illegal to refuse insurance coverage to people with preexisting conditions but all Insurance companies will do is increase prices so people cant afford it anyway thus while being 'legal' there is no effective difference as far as coverage is concerned.

Obama recently accepted $80 Billion from Drug companies to use for advertising in exchange for him not doing nothing to reduce drug prices http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/pharma-deal-with-white-ho_n_353499.html.

It would be nice if the Obama administration had the best interests of the people at heart. It is not difficult to create workable policies to solve the problems America has, the only problem is that his administration is completely corrupt and in the pocket of the corporations. The best that can be hoped for at this point is gridlock.

Fame, trust, brand-value, and connections are all forms of human capital (as opposed to technological capital). Education and training likewise are forms of human capital. Human easily explains the income disparity in all economies.

On November 13 2009 19:17 Piretes wrote:

I can assure you that universal health-care will not scare very many rich people out of the country. Yes, it will hit the upper-middle class relatively harder, but it's in their interest on the long run. Especially the middle class, which earns much more than the threshold for social policies (Medicare etc) but not enough to shrug medical costs off, will benefit from fairer health-care. For the middle class, financial security is detereorating, as astronomical health-care costs are always around the corner, and job-loss/bankruptcy can happen fast when one finds himself very sick. At the moment, insurance is bad and expensive, and the state-option will break open the monopoly of local insurers, which doesn't solve everything, but at least helps.

I wasn't specifically talking about the bill itself, but about your snobbish assumption that everyone who seeks help is a grabby, selfish child. I'm not a big proponent of the bill, and to be fair I don't know many of the details, but I think change is needed.

The US is hurtling down a road to bankruptcy, partly because of the sick american consumerist ideal (always wanting more, even if it is above your means) that is prodded along by buisness elites, and because of the ever widening gap between the lower-class and the elites. What happens when the consumer is totally overloaded with debt? Everything crashes, after a while a new cycle begins (with even more debt).

I know that this seems hopeless, and it actually gets close to being so, thanks to the stubbornness of people like you. The system of corporation-dominated quasi free-market capitalism is not going to last long like this, but it'll first ruin alot of American lives.

On November 14 2009 01:08 Caller wrote:



im not sure if its more oxymoronic that your tone is significantly more snobbish than the person that you criticize, or that you don't know many of the details but think its a good thing.

On November 14 2009 01:15 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:


Normally I wouldn't interfere in such a spat but I feel bound to point out that you do not know what "oxymoronic" means. I always think it is particularly important not to make such errors in a post in which you are criticising someone else's lack of knowledge.

On November 14 2009 00:19 TanGeng wrote:


Let's divide the economic world into two spheres. There are tangible goods, real goods and services. There are intangible goods, sense of well-being, connections, marketing, token value, etc.

In the world of producing tangible goods, it's hard for anyone to be 100 time more effective than someone else using the same tools and putting in the same hours. But in the world of intangible goods, the best can easily be millions of times more productive than than the average entry level worker.

The best example for this effect is in sales and marketing where the marketeer has to get the attention of the target audience and the salesman has to get the audience sit down and take out their wallets. Someone like a Hollywood celebrity would be hundreds of millions times better than the average individuals in generating name recognition. Same goes for the top FDA liaison at a drug development company that has private connections with members of the FDA drug approval board. Same goes for lobbyists that has worked with many members of congress in the past.

Fame, trust, brand-value, and connections are all forms of human capital (as opposed to technological capital). Education and training likewise are forms of human capital. Human easily explains the income disparity in all economies.

On November 14 2009 01:13 Caller wrote:
There is a reason that I have not really posted in this thread. I am very passionate about this field and love to argue, and have posted in similar threads in the past. Yet I have given up simply because people tend to ignore reason and instead go simply after the flame, leading me to conclude that you couldn't really give a flying fuck about whatever, you just want to use straw man and ad hominem attacks to justify whatever point you're trying to make.

I have already addressed the roots of the healthcare crisis here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102184&currentpage=2#35

And here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102184&currentpage=3#59

And my arguments have remained unrefuted and even unaddressed. This leads me to conclude that my above position, that you're just a bunch of trolls, is valid.

It's really surprising how people tend to ignore basic principles of supply and demand and instead blame everything on abstract elements of human morality rather than what the math tells us.

On November 14 2009 01:29 Sadist wrote:



Ok Ive read your posts and they make sense but one part you are neglecting people with chronic conditions. You also neglected to address the cost of prescription drugs.

My mother caught one of those super bugs MERSA 2 years ago. The medication cost $90 a pilll. She had to take several pills a day for several weeks. As far as I know unless there is a generic version of a drug the price is essentially set. So its not like if you didnt have insurance the cost of the medication would be any less than if you had insurance.

I mean I understand the argument for insurance for extreme cases like heart attacks/cancer/etc. But what about simple bone breaks? Or You get injured in a fall or something? What if you need a ride in an ambulance (several thousand dollars wtf?) I get that these costs will go down with your idea of competition from those who dont have insurance but how much would it go down? How much is reasonable? There are loads of questions you have to ask its not just a simple supply/demand when we are talking about health.

edit:

To some up how would the option of no insurance reflect the cost of prescription drugs and or treatments/physical therapy? Especially those that are non generic that have that window of profitability or whatever the hell its called where the company owns the patent exclusively im assuming?

On November 14 2009 02:02 Sadist wrote:
So it seems health insurance or insurance in general is a problem at the heart of the isms (capitalism, socialism, communism etc) themselves. Insurance is a corrupt system in itself in my opinion. If its run for profit obviously anytime someone is paid out the company is taking a loss so there is motivation not to cover things but if everything is covered is it really considered insurance? =-)

I like many have had issues like this effect me personally (a previous insurance company not wanting to cover my vitiligo treatment). Theres really no simple solution and its disheartening. The populace as a whole would have to become "better people" for things like this to be fixed. Unfortunately that isnt going to be happening anytime soon =(.

On November 14 2009 02:10 Caller wrote:

For a better idea of what insurance does see moral hazard. Moral hazard is pretty much responsible for a lot of shit, including the financial crisis, and it never seems to be accounted for by anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

On November 14 2009 02:18 Sadist wrote:



I disagree that health insurance is a Moral Hazard according to this article. Some insurances yes....but not health. If you could have your body completely rebuilt or something along those lines id agree it would be comparable with say auto theft insurance....but theres always the realization that anything involving health can be permanent.

On November 14 2009 02:23 Undisputed- wrote:


You're saying if you don't health insurance you wouldn't take better care of yourself/avoid more dangerous or risky situations then if you did?

On November 14 2009 02:30 Sadist wrote:


I understand what you are getting in terms of things like common colds etc but I was thinking more along the lines of physical activity. The article made it sound like someone taking idiotic risks. I pictured someone jumping off of a building and then saying oh shit its ok I have health insurance my spine can be rebuilt.

Of course theres inherent risks to anything you do. Fuck walking outside could get you killed.
Are you saying its someones fault if they engage in the "risky" behavior of pickup basketball? How about jogging?