EPTSnide remarks aside, that's pretty silly. The whole US gov't is a pretty mixed up situation at the moment anyway. Thank god I don't live there.
[US] House Passes Healthcare Repeal - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
Snide remarks aside, that's pretty silly. The whole US gov't is a pretty mixed up situation at the moment anyway. Thank god I don't live there. | ||
|
Belegorm
United States330 Posts
If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you? | ||
|
HansMoleman
United States343 Posts
| ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On January 26 2011 01:50 darmousseh wrote: I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian. Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats. I see. How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today? Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost. You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this. Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly. | ||
|
BroodjeBaller
125 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform." If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you? fox news told you? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10495 Posts
On January 25 2011 19:16 plainsane wrote: Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance. How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance? most people already have insurance and it's really hard to make an argument that they would benefit from insuring the other 20% of the country. For example http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing. You can't really insist that most people would benefit from it and then call them greedy for not wanting it | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform." If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you? And that's the whole point. Yes, it's a symbolic gesture to repeal healthcare right now, but it's a gesture that will keep the healthcare bill as a focal point in political debate and make it a major issue in next year's elections. The healthcare bill is a bad bill that is becoming increasingly unpopular. It will be changed eventually. | ||
|
Infinite Lurker
United States24 Posts
For the record, the Republican party is known for operating based on fears, fear of immigrants, and disaster, and terrorism, all the like. Also know that the following is pure opinion. The healthcare bill is like building a photon cannon. It gives detection, and protects probes, but at the end of the day it doesn't help you attack. The rich don't want to pay to subsidize the costs of the lower class's health insurance. The lower class is manipulated into thinking they will be forced to pay large sums for health insurance they might not need. In fact, health insurance is a good thing for doctors as well. Treating a patient without insurance, or with really crappy health insurance, is really awkward. Someone needs to pick up the tab at the end of the day. Europe should understand that getting reelected is the only important thing here, and that Germany won't bail us out if we overextend ourselves. If you haven't checked out our debt, do it sometimes. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:26 BlackJack wrote: most people already have insurance and it's really hard to make an argument that they would benefit from insuring the other 20% of the country. For example http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html You can't really insist that most people would benefit from it and then call them greedy for not wanting it Whether or not they think they would benefit from it is not the point. The point is that the entire country benefits from ensuring that its citizens are all provided with health care whether or not they want it. Just as education is compulsory in the United States, so it health coverage. If you cannot afford a state certified private school, you must attend private school, if you refuse private school, you must undergo a state-approved home school program. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform." If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you? Free health care is a basic human right in plenty of countries. Denying 20% of your population a basic human right because it'll cost the rest too much money is a pretty dumb way of doing things. Then again, this kind of logic is how the american economy got so strong in the first place, so hey, I guess I'm just stupid. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:29 xDaunt wrote: And that's the whole point. Yes, it's a symbolic gesture to repeal healthcare right now, but it's a gesture that will keep the healthcare bill as a focal point in political debate and make it a major issue in next year's elections. The healthcare bill is a bad bill that is becoming increasingly unpopular. It will be changed eventually. How is it a bad bill? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:25 Consolidate wrote: I see. How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today? Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost. You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this. Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly. This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care. Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL. It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare. The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:41 xDaunt wrote: This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care. Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL. It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare. The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits. I'm not calling for the dissolution of private insurance companies. Those fortunate enough to afford super-premium coverage are much obliged to seek it. The problem with your argument is that third-party insurance companies are even more prone to the rationing sentiment you describe. Ever heard of preexisting condition? Unlike a government program, insurance companies have no social incentive to provide coverage for people who are deemed 'unprofitable' There does need to be a debate over 'end-of-life' treatment plans. If you are 70 years old and you need a kidney transplant, or if you are 80 years old in the very late stages of cancer, perhaps the costs of keeping you alive really are prohibitively expensive for the government to cover you. But that's not the point of the argument. This bill does not force citizens under the federal plan. It merely extends coverage to those with no health insurance at all. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:25 Consolidate wrote: I see. How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today? Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost. You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this. Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly. You are bringing up examples of isolated incidents. Here are some counter examples. Demand for medical care is not inelastic. Here's an article on it http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/22/is-health-care-demand-elastic/ The best example is that a ton of people don't have health insurance. The fact that people are willing to not buy health insurance is definitely a sign of it's elasticity. Anyway, health care used to be unregulated. It was cheap, health care is now regulated, it is expensive. In many third world countries, health care can be purchased for a fraction of the cost as those countries do not have major corporate insurance companies nor regulated health care, just doctors treating patients. Obviously in a first world country prices will be higher (due to wages and demand for higher quality treatment), but in every example i've ever seen, deregulation always leads to lower prices. The only purpose of regulation is to stop some sort of behaviour or discourage it. There has never been any regulation which has helped the economy. For pharmaceutical companies, we should just allow foreign companies to sell medicine in the US, it would become a lot cheaper. If the government truly wants to lower the price of insurance at the expense of taxpayers, they can simply offer a tax credit to insurance companies. Something like 50% of revenues earned from insurance are not taxed. That, along with legislation to promote competition, will lower the rate of health insurance to the point where it's affordable for everyone with a job. Counties and states can take care of the poor like they already do. | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On January 26 2011 00:50 Treemonkeys wrote: No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free. I would like to point out a few things abut the german healthcare system, just because your view of how it works is fundamentally wrong. 1. The government does NOT run health insurance. It merely legislated that health insurance is mandatory. This means that a) everyone has to get an insurance (excluding kids and spouses who do not have an income who will be covered by a working person) and b) that an insurance company is NOT allowed to deny you for whatever reasons. 2. There are two types of insuracne companies in germany, "legal" and "private". The legal ones are not "public" in the sense that they are state-run. There are currently 166 of the "legal" insurance companies which allows for a lot of competition. "Legal" insurance costs around 15 percent of one's gros income, that is, the more you earn, the more you pay. Higher incomes subsidise weaker incomes (yeah, kinda socialist). If your yearly income exceeds 50.000 Euros you can selkect a private insurance (for lower incomes it is usually not possible and also not cost-effective). German private insurance has fixed rates, that is, no subsidizing of weaker incomes. 3. "Legal" insurance companies are forced by law to civer a specific set of health care (e.g. full coverage of all costs associated with broken bones, amalgam fillings for teeth). Everything beyond that can either be covered by adding specific private insurances (e.g.add-on insurance for teeth) or paying the added cost privately. All in all, the system is not state-run! The state merely legistaled in a way that ensures that everyone regardless of income can obtain a specified minium health care coverage. People are free to chose the insurer that offers the best deal or the best service and whoever wants better healthcare than the baseline can buy additional insurance. Thereis no "middle man" but,. on the plus side, also no stakeholders who want profit at the cost of the insured. Pretty sensible system, if you ask me. | ||
|
GloomyBeaR
United States77 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:25 Consolidate wrote: You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this. Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly. Well said, sir. | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:41 xDaunt wrote: This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care. Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL. It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare. The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits. Rationing already happens in our system. People with pre-existing conditions can't get any treatment except for emergency, life-saving ones. People who cannot afford medical insurance simply don't get any treatments again except for emergency ones. Also, the issue of organ donation is a prime example of how rationing works. No 70 year old in the US will get an organ transplant off the donor list. If a family member decides to donate an organ, then that 70 year old can get a transplant. But off the list? No way. There are literally 40 different metrics on the organ donation list that prioritizes people based on age, health, ability to pay, time waiting, etc etc. Organ donation is heavily rationed as is most healthcare in the US. There's a huge push to get people who have substandard insurance out the door as soon as possible because of how unprofitable they are. Hospitals around the country are closing their emergency services because of how unprofitable it is. You simply aren't paying attention to what's happening in the US while complaining about rationing in Europe. On every metric, the US health system is fail. We are right in the thick of several Eastern bloc nations. Every developed country (and some developing countries) are ahead of us on every meaningful measure of healthcare. We pay, literally, 5 times more than the most expensive socialized healthcare in taxes alone. Counting disposable income (eg copays, prescriptions, deductibles) we pay close to 7 times what other countries pay. Remember, in Germany or France, once you pay your taxes, your liability towards healthcare ends. | ||
|
jungsu
United States279 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 26 2011 02:51 Consolidate wrote: I'm not calling for the dissolution of private insurance companies. Those fortunate enough to afford super-premium coverage are much obliged to seek it. The problem with your argument is that third-party insurance companies are even more prone to the rationing sentiment you describe. Ever heard of preexisting condition? Unlike a government program, insurance companies have no social incentive to provide coverage for people who are deemed 'unprofitable' There does need to be a debate over 'end-of-life' treatment plans. If you are 70 years old and you need a kidney transplant, or if you are 80 years old in the very late stages of cancer, perhaps the costs of keeping you alive really are prohibitively expensive for the government to cover you. But that's not the point of the argument. This bill does not force citizens under the federal plan. It merely extends coverage to those with no health insurance at all. One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions. Health insurance is meant to be a hedge against the risk of needing treatment. Obamacare is basically forcing health insurance carriers to take on new liabilities -- not the risk of liabilities. This is a big problem. If we're going to provide some degree of treatment to people who are uninsurable privately, then create a public option for them exclusively and just call it what it is: another form of welfare. At least that way, everyone else won't get screwed beyond having another government liability to fund (as opposed to having their health insurance wrecked). Here's another sign that Obamacare is a bad bill: have you noticed how many companies and unions have been seeking waivers from Obamacare's provisions? What do you think the issue is there? | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On January 26 2011 01:48 Consolidate wrote: Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down. Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms. There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time. Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests. People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume. | ||
| ||
