|
On January 26 2011 07:04 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote:
Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized. That's because they'll be making 100x more money if it's privatized. They can, will, and still do deny healthcare to people, even if they are insured. "Sorry, your healthcare plan doesn't cover that". I had to go in for a surgery, I know. Now I'm paying it out of my own pockets.
Oh please, they will make tons of money either way, and the current system is not at all "privatized". It will be the insurance companies themselves running "obamas" plan.
|
On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
|
On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Why not just send everyone $500,000, and then everyone can afford their own healthcare!
|
On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
|
On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
Hm, but that problem is easily solved if you require the public option to operate on its own. The only difference, then, would be that the public option must not generate profit that is their cost-advantage stops at the point where they run a deficit.
|
On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
|
On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
|
On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
|
On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
lol please? where did you learn this? seriously
|
On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously
learn what?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:49 silynxer wrote:So what about "number of broken bones" as an indicator (I'm going to bet that it is pretty much the same in the US as in most parts of Europe, perhaps I'll try to find statistics on this later)? Should this be explained through "riskier culture" so that the American culture would be moral hazardous in itself? But then again before I digress further, I think you would be hard pressed to show that free healthcare leads to riskier behaviour. To expand on my edit: The true cost of pretty much everything healthcare related remains hidden from the people even if they pay the full price (my examples were vaccination and regular check ups). [EDIT]: Really interesting and the timing is so good: TED talk
There is little value to compare relative amounts of moral hazard in the two systems.
Moral hazard is apparent as excessive cost overruns in funding the health care system or excessive red tape in getting approval or payment for health care delivered. Both of these signs are apparent in the US system. In EU system, you might find long lines, low quality of service, bureaucratic approval, subsidized education, and budget-busting costs. Many nations are moving towards a public-private tier system to control costs.
When moral hazard imposes overwhelming costs on insurance as it does now in US health care, it is a sign of a broken insurance model. It's better that insurance gets abandoned as the delivery mechanism for health care than it is to somehow prop it back up with "individual mandates" and further regulation.
|
On January 26 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:35 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable. The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again. Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them. WRU critical thinking? Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved? You think you know who the government spies on?
I'm asking what the Patriot Act authorizes. What sort of "spying" does the Patriot Act authorize, and on whom? And how is it unconstitutional?
I love how after nearly a dozen posts between us, you still haven't mentioned anything specific about the Patriot Act or made any specific arguments about how they are "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Probably because you know between jack and shit about what the Patriot Act actually authorizes and the meaning of "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment.
|
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
|
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote:
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encourage housing for everyone.
This + who creates all US money? Hmmm... anyone?
|
On January 26 2011 07:34 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:35 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable. The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again. Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them. WRU critical thinking? Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved? You think you know who the government spies on? I'm asking what the Patriot Act authorizes. What sort of "spying" does the Patriot Act authorize, and on whom? And how is it unconstitutional? I love how after nearly a dozen posts between us, you still haven't mentioned anything specific about the Patriot Act or made any specific arguments about how they are "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Probably because you know between jack and shit about what the Patriot Act actually authorizes and the meaning of "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment.
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 06:54 Tralan wrote:
I know that the there is a CBO report which is a bipartisan group which says the health-care reform will reduce the defecit by a hundred billion I think so this would seem to show it is more affordable than the previous medicaid scheme. I have never heard of the term 'health rationing'; is that like you can only use insurance for certain conditions?
I find the CBO report laughable. The taxes that go into fund the health care reform go into effect before the health care reform starts spending money. The fiscally responsible portion is the taxes not the health care reform.
It's like promoting a plan that increases taxes by 8 billion a year immediately and then starts giving away 10 billion dollars a year four years from now, and claiming the 10 billion a year giveaway is fiscally responsible.
Yes, in the next 10 year period, it does produce a fiscal surplus of 20 billion. But it's the 8 billion a year tax increase that is doing the work, and there is a 2 billion shortfall each and every year that the plan is in effect.
|
On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote:
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money... But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor? But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table. Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what?
That the gorvernment caused the current recession.
|
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote:
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
|
On January 26 2011 07:43 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote:
[quote]
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what? That the gorvernment caused the current recession.
Books.
|
On January 26 2011 07:43 Tralan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote:
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
Where did fannie and freddie borrow their money from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
