|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 06:59 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 06:42 RoyW wrote:
Undisputed. - Could you please explain why other western nations, with socialised medicine, have a cheaper per capita expense on healthcare than the US?
Also, why, in those countries, hasn't the world ended with all those dire consequences that are happening if US becomes socialised? Why do we lead the world in cancer survival rates? The US health care system is so horrible people from around the world come here to be treated. The US is probably one of the few places you drop into an emergency room and be treated even with no ID because they cannot turn you away. Outside of the US health care is rationed and optimized based on age mostly from what I have seen. We spend the most I think because doctors have to cover there asses from malpractice lawsuits.
States with tort reform laws (anti-medical malpractice) do not have lower medical costs than states without.
Honestly this whole post basically screams "I haven't done any research but I'm still absolutely sure of my position"
|
Undisputed- should we shut down the public school system? How about go back in time and stop the polio immunizations. What about rebuilding Europe after WWII? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Let's not build roads. Let's not send the children of dead soldiers to university. Screw'em all no social safety nets. Let's terminate the police and fireman too. (They've been getting a free ride too if you ask me.)
We don't want to FORCE anyone to pay for someone else.
|
On November 10 2009 06:50 motbob wrote:
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant?
Do you know how many things are promoted as 'debt neutral' by the government? Plus, when all these rich people and corporations get hit with huge taxes, you can bet they're making up the difference by upping the price on their products. One way or another, this is going to cost everyone in a big way, except those who are uninsured, and given the absolutely craptastic economy we're in, it's stupid.
|
On November 10 2009 07:03 mangomango wrote:
Undisputed- should we shut down the public school system? How about go back in time and stop the polio immunizations. What about rebuilding Europe after WWII? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Let's not build roads. Let's not send the children of dead soldiers to university. Screw'em all no social safety nets. Let's terminate the police and fireman too. (They've been getting a free ride too if you ask me.)
We don't want to FORCE anyone to pay for someone else.
yeah thats almost the same thing
RAGE RAGE
|
why is that every single otherwise innocous healthcare thread turns into a raging whirlwind of flamewar
to op, while your trolling skills are quite strong, you have yet to learn how to control your powers. Join me and I can teach you how to control your powers and grow them so that you may one day eventually be able to knock out your rivals and claim the title of He That Should Not be Posted.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 07:04 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 06:50 motbob wrote:
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant? Do you know how many things are promoted as 'debt neutral' by the government? Plus, when all these rich people and corporations get hit with huge taxes, you can bet they're making up the difference by upping the price on their products. One way or another, this is going to cost everyone in a big way, except those who are uninsured, and given the absolutely craptastic economy we're in, it's stupid.
...taxes on rich individuals get passed on to the poor? That's not true at all. In fact it's sort of impossible.
|
On November 10 2009 06:59 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 06:42 RoyW wrote:
Undisputed. - Could you please explain why other western nations, with socialised medicine, have a cheaper per capita expense on healthcare than the US?
Also, why, in those countries, hasn't the world ended with all those dire consequences that are happening if US becomes socialised? Why do we lead the world in cancer survival rates? The US health care system is so horrible people from around the world come here to be treated. The US is probably one of the few places you drop into an emergency room and be treated even with no ID because they cannot turn you away. Outside of the US health care is rationed and optimized based on age mostly from what I have seen. We spend the most I think because doctors have to cover there asses from malpractice lawsuits.
IF you can PAY for it you get the best treatment possible. But in many countries people even live longer than in the US despite not having the best cancer survival rates. The reason hospitals can't turn emergency cases away is why more and more close their ER. And yes malpractice lawsuits are part of the puzzle why health care is so expensive in the US.
|
On November 10 2009 02:20 Ingenol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 01:49 Jadyks wrote:
Right, because socialism is a terrible terrible thing. I hate uneducated conservatives.
Socialism != USSR
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, these things are socialist programs we already have in place. Wanna bitch about those too?
Grow up and stop listening to sound-bytes. Stop listening to republican hot-words like 'socialist' 'communist', this is bullshit. This is true, and in line with your statement it should be noted that capitalism != USA. We have never had a truly capitalist economy (it's actually a yet untested political system), and since the New Deal we have basically been more of a "minimally socialist" government, becoming more so all the time.
It annoys me when people gripe about the New Deal and then neglect to mention the anti-market, pro-business polices that Hamilton advocated and the united states has been putting into place since the 1790s.
|
On November 10 2009 07:11 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 07:04 Hawk wrote:On November 10 2009 06:50 motbob wrote:
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant? Do you know how many things are promoted as 'debt neutral' by the government? Plus, when all these rich people and corporations get hit with huge taxes, you can bet they're making up the difference by upping the price on their products. One way or another, this is going to cost everyone in a big way, except those who are uninsured, and given the absolutely craptastic economy we're in, it's stupid. ...taxes on rich individuals get passed on to the poor? That's not true at all. In fact it's sort of impossible.
If a dude's making a certain amount of money and would like to maintain that lifestyle and taxes lop off %15 percent of that, you don't think whatever product he's peddling is going up in cost to recoup some of that?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 07:15 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 07:11 motbob wrote:On November 10 2009 07:04 Hawk wrote:On November 10 2009 06:50 motbob wrote:
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant? Do you know how many things are promoted as 'debt neutral' by the government? Plus, when all these rich people and corporations get hit with huge taxes, you can bet they're making up the difference by upping the price on their products. One way or another, this is going to cost everyone in a big way, except those who are uninsured, and given the absolutely craptastic economy we're in, it's stupid. ...taxes on rich individuals get passed on to the poor? That's not true at all. In fact it's sort of impossible. If a dude's making a certain amount of money and would like to maintain that lifestyle and taxes lop off %15 percent of that, you don't think whatever product he's peddling is going up in cost to recoup some of that?
Products are always priced at the profit maximizing point. No amount of taxes on individuals will change the price of products.
I mean, the assumption that somehow rich people could just magically make more money after a tax hike means that you're assuming that rich people aren't profit-maximizing before the tax hike, which honestly is a pretty bad assumption to make.
|
On November 10 2009 07:06 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 07:03 mangomango wrote:
Undisputed- should we shut down the public school system? How about go back in time and stop the polio immunizations. What about rebuilding Europe after WWII? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Let's not build roads. Let's not send the children of dead soldiers to university. Screw'em all no social safety nets. Let's terminate the police and fireman too. (They've been getting a free ride too if you ask me.)
We don't want to FORCE anyone to pay for someone else.
yeah thats almost the same thing RAGE RAGE
OK, it's official your an ass.
|
On November 10 2009 07:15 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 07:11 motbob wrote:On November 10 2009 07:04 Hawk wrote:On November 10 2009 06:50 motbob wrote:
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant? Do you know how many things are promoted as 'debt neutral' by the government? Plus, when all these rich people and corporations get hit with huge taxes, you can bet they're making up the difference by upping the price on their products. One way or another, this is going to cost everyone in a big way, except those who are uninsured, and given the absolutely craptastic economy we're in, it's stupid. ...taxes on rich individuals get passed on to the poor? That's not true at all. In fact it's sort of impossible. If a dude's making a certain amount of money and would like to maintain that lifestyle and taxes lop off %15 percent of that, you don't think whatever product he's peddling is going up in cost to recoup some of that?
No. Thats simply not how economics work. It is not economically feasible for a "dude" to mark up prices in order to stay at the same net income. Thats just not how supply and demand works.
|
On November 10 2009 06:47 RoyW wrote:
USA spends, before any implementation of socialised medicine, 13.8% of it's GDP on health. Germany and switzerland are next two highest in the world at 10%. Why have the wonders of the free market raped the American people of affordable healthcare?
That's because the US isn't a free market. In many industries, we are a oligopolistic competitive market with the possibility of collusion. In today's modern system--with bailouts, top government officials coming from major companies, and the high frequency of nepotism visible between politicians and big executives--I'm pretty sure there is in fact a high degree of collusion. The argument here isn't whether or not the system is broken, but whether or not we should be moving to a public option, or a truer, more free market privatized health care system.
|
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.
|
On November 10 2009 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.
Bad idea. See: Delaware
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.
Honestly, the public option sort of fixes this. I wish the reimbursement rates for the public option were higher, though.
|
On November 10 2009 07:21 Therapy wrote:
No. Thats simply not how economics work. It is not economically feasible for a "dude" to mark up prices in order to stay at the same net income. Thats just not how supply and demand works.
Please don't talk about the economy when you don't know what you're talking about.
Company's have to maintain a certain percent above costs to make money. All costs must be paid for by revenue. If you increase costs (taxes, minimum wage, inflation, cost of goods, transporting costs etc.) you must raise the price to match your profit margin, or cut the product, or try to dispose of the product to be replaced with something else.
|
On November 10 2009 07:36 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition. Bad idea. See: Delaware
Congress can regulate the new interstate commerce created under such a plan. Federal law would pre-empt state law in that case.
|
On November 10 2009 04:11 Try wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 04:04 knatt wrote:
What's wrong with free health care? Find it kind of unnecessary for children with no health insurance to die in vain because of some random stupid shit.
I don't even know if I'm saying anything that makes any sense, since my knowledge of American politics is very limited. Oh well, life goes on~~~ Yeah, these kind of posts make me think that very few people posting here actually understand the financial ramifications of universal health care. There are many problems with free health care in the United States. 1. People will always go for the more expensive treatment. 2. People will go to the ER for very minor cuts and diseases. 3. Doctors will be paid far less, which will increase the shortage of surgeons and PCP's. 4. Baby boomers are aging, and will cause the debt to explode. 5. Presciption drug companies will be paid far less, decreasing their incentive to find cures. 6. Due to 1 and 2, wait times for treatments will be far longer 7. ( This point might be controversial) People who are more useful to society (generally those who make more money, for example, Bill Gates or someone with a good job probably contributed more than some random hobo) should be able to get better health care.8. etc, etc, etc.
You are a fucking dick. Havent made it through all the posts in this thread yet and im sure someone else pointed it out but seriously. Think before you type. Jesus christ.
|
On November 10 2009 07:28 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The one reform that would lower costs more than any other at minimal Federal expense is one Democrats will not touch: using Commerce Clause power to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It has been reported in the news how many markets are served by just a few providers. Instead of introducing a single government competitor to oligopolistic markets, it makes much more sense to introduces dozens of private ones if your concern is competition.
Pshh, the commerce clause is clearly in the Constitution to empower Congress to make laws to prevent people from growing marijuana in their basements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
