|
|
On November 03 2012 03:53 Darknat wrote:
Reasons Obama should lose on Election Day:
Forcing a partisan healthcare law that steps into territory that no government at all should step into.
Returning the US to the mentality that lead to September 11, 2001.
He's an ideologue and ideologues make terrible presidents(as shown by Obama's disastrous presidency).
It's his way or the highway which just creates a gridlock in Washington that will only go away once he's removed from office.
This is all just nonsense. No government should step into healthcare? Every other advanced country has a government run healthcare system.
The next two reasons are empty, nonspecific fluff.
The last point is also just nonsense. Did Obama get his way on healthcare? Where's the public option? Did Obama get his way on the pointless debt ceiling debate? There wasn't 1 cent in tax increases. In truth, which others in this thread have already pointed out is that Republicans planned to obstruct Obama before he was even sworn in. As McConnell said, their top priority, was to make him a 1 term president. They have never compromised, and never budged on anything.
|
On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying.
I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable.
And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the way romney ran into gm/chrysler in ohio is pretty hilarious. doesn't he realize saying that shit will actually affect those guys and what did he expect them to do.
|
On November 03 2012 04:04 oneofthem wrote:
the way romney ran into gm/chrysler in ohio is pretty hilarious. doesn't he realize saying that shit will actually affect those guys and what did he expect them to do.
I was in Ohio this morning and heard the jeep ad 3 times in an hour on one radio station. Pretty sick stuff. As much as I hate Ohio, I feel bad for the people that live there this time of year 
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On November 03 2012 03:53 Darknat wrote:
Reasons Obama should lose on Election Day:
Forcing a partisan healthcare law that steps into territory that no government at all should step into.
Returning the US to the mentality that lead to September 11, 2001.
He's an ideologue and ideologues make terrible presidents(as shown by Obama's disastrous presidency).
It's his way or the highway which just creates a gridlock in Washington that will only go away once he's removed from office.
I sense a bit of circular logic here? Or is there a better term for this kind of thing?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. it's not debatable that america has a hugely costly healthcare system, along with unexpectedly low quality of care delivered along with high profit (read, rent seeking galore), politically powerful medical industry of all stripes from insurance to delivery systems. cutting that fat should be the priority and not creating even more opportunities to exploit information asymmetry with 'choice' that no patient is likely to understand.
as i've said repeatedly in the past, there is a single payer system doing very well in america itself. just replicate that for everything and you'll end up doing very well.
to be fair american medical research is doing the world a favor by investing in research, but that gain won't amount to much if they red tape stem cell, or the focus is hugely devoted to extending baby boomer life span by a few months.
|
On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader.
No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth.
Here are some graphs and a study, which I posted back here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=477#9533
![[image loading]](http://www.medicareforall.org/images/spending_among_30_countries.jpg)
Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg
![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/177876/HEALTH-RANKINGS.jpg)
Source: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx
|
On November 03 2012 04:02 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 03:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 03:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 03:17 oneofthem wrote:
for all the shit i give libertarians they are at least sincere about fixing government. but they conflate bad government with government in general. eliminating fraud and rent seeking in all the government related industries can go a long way towards making government work better. republicans on the other hand is a party of crony powers. they are realist about government. it should work only for the powerful and rich.
bureaucracy is a problem for both public and private organizations. bad investments happen both publicly and privately, we call that 'entrepreneur error'. a fancy way of saying you fucked up. the argument against govt is that there is no incentive to make sure the money gets used right, and there is no competition to drive the bad govt out of business.
but, this argument is a coarse one, relying on generalities and failing to specify any particular government or its culture. it does not mean motivated individuals cannot make a difference in government work itself and do things right. the whole premise of a technocracy is that technical experts are less influenced by interest capture and can better represent the interests of the public, and a more fair representation as well. Dems and Reps are both parties of cronyism, though in my own experience Dems have been worse. A key difference between private and public investment gone awry is that the private market does a better job of pricing in the risk of failure. You look at our defense spending and you think Dems have been worse? lol. Didn't realize there was a line item for 'cronyism' can you link me that number? Or are you talking about something different now? You're saying that cronyism on the part of the Democrats is worse than that of the Republicans, I'm just saying take a look around. Dems have been getting increasingly worse these past few years (or just more visible), but they are not yet on the level of the Republicans.
I did take a look around. That's where my opinion comes from. Dems spend money on the military too btw!
|
On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. Here are some graphs and a study, which I posted back here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=477#9533Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpgSource: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx
correlation != causation
|
On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth.
IMO the problem with healthcare in the US is that its neither run by the private or public sector but rather a clearly broken hodgepodge of both.
Reps want a private run system which could theoretically work.
Dems want a public run system which has worked in various models around the world.
And the problem with Obamacare is that while it addresses some of the worst symptoms of the current system, it doesn't dig deep enough into the structural problems. Because of that, even if Obamacare stays fully in place, the US still needs healthcare reform - and quite badly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2012 04:15 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. Here are some graphs and a study, which I posted back here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=477#9533Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpgSource: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx correlation != causation
now this is the height of abuse
|
On November 03 2012 04:15 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. Here are some graphs and a study, which I posted back here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=477#9533Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpgSource: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx correlation != causation
If you have an alternative theory as to what could possibly cause such a major difference in cost then I would love to know what it is.
|
If those graphs are accurate, then the facts are:
-US spends way more on healthcare than other countries
-US does not receive very good healthcare, despite extremely high spending
It does not definitively prove that socialized health care is the best idea, but it is the obvious solution, given that countries with similar systems have a better quality of care/cost ratio.
|
On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. IMO the problem with healthcare in the US is that its neither run by the private or public sector but rather a clearly broken hodgepodge of both. Reps want a private run system which could theoretically work. Dems want a public run system which has worked in various models around the world. And the problem with Obamacare is that while it addresses some of the worst symptoms of the current system, it doesn't dig deep enough into the structural problems. Because of that, even if Obamacare stays fully in place, the US still needs healthcare reform - and quite badly.
Wow I actually agree with one of your posts. 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:02 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 03:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 03:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 03:17 oneofthem wrote:
for all the shit i give libertarians they are at least sincere about fixing government. but they conflate bad government with government in general. eliminating fraud and rent seeking in all the government related industries can go a long way towards making government work better. republicans on the other hand is a party of crony powers. they are realist about government. it should work only for the powerful and rich.
bureaucracy is a problem for both public and private organizations. bad investments happen both publicly and privately, we call that 'entrepreneur error'. a fancy way of saying you fucked up. the argument against govt is that there is no incentive to make sure the money gets used right, and there is no competition to drive the bad govt out of business.
but, this argument is a coarse one, relying on generalities and failing to specify any particular government or its culture. it does not mean motivated individuals cannot make a difference in government work itself and do things right. the whole premise of a technocracy is that technical experts are less influenced by interest capture and can better represent the interests of the public, and a more fair representation as well. Dems and Reps are both parties of cronyism, though in my own experience Dems have been worse. A key difference between private and public investment gone awry is that the private market does a better job of pricing in the risk of failure. You look at our defense spending and you think Dems have been worse? lol. Didn't realize there was a line item for 'cronyism' can you link me that number? Or are you talking about something different now? You're saying that cronyism on the part of the Democrats is worse than that of the Republicans, I'm just saying take a look around. Dems have been getting increasingly worse these past few years (or just more visible), but they are not yet on the level of the Republicans. I did take a look around. That's where my opinion comes from. Dems spend money on the military too btw!
You're conflating 'spends money' with 'full-fledged cronyism,' not that I don't doubt there aren't a few Democrats who are in the pockets of Lockheed Martin, but the cronyism on the side of the Republicans in terms of military spending is insane and they literally do not make a secret of it.
In any case, actually proving cronyism to its full extent is improbable so it's not like we can really compare the two parties with statistics. We'll just have to live within our own realities.
On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. IMO the problem with healthcare in the US is that its neither run by the private or public sector but rather a clearly broken hodgepodge of both. Reps want a private run system which could theoretically work. Dems want a public run system which has worked in various models around the world. And the problem with Obamacare is that while it addresses some of the worst symptoms of the current system, it doesn't dig deep enough into the structural problems. Because of that, even if Obamacare stays fully in place, the US still needs healthcare reform - and quite badly.
Private system would not work. I believe paralleluniverse explained why pretty well. Add that to the fact that even if it starts off privatized, the government would have to step in eventually with massive regulations and whatnot because the health of the populace is taken very seriously, as it should be.
|
On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. IMO the problem with healthcare in the US is that its neither run by the private or public sector but rather a clearly broken hodgepodge of both. Reps want a private run system which could theoretically work. Dems want a public run system which has worked in various models around the world. And the problem with Obamacare is that while it addresses some of the worst symptoms of the current system, it doesn't dig deep enough into the structural problems. Because of that, even if Obamacare stays fully in place, the US still needs healthcare reform - and quite badly.
You can say that after all policys of Obamacare are implemented and then doesnt work. Obamacare will be fully implemented in 2020 I believe?
Also Reps want to run a private system, can I ask which modernized countries that apply that figure? Also how well is the model compared to the public run system? I know romney will bring US to the ground as Bush will. It is my opinion that probably will never change because I am a Liberal, and I believe the world needs to help everyone equality whereas romney has shown his side for the rich. Also if you noticed romney is someone other nations laugh at... go research his trips to UK and such
|
On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. IMO the problem with healthcare in the US is that its neither run by the private or public sector but rather a clearly broken hodgepodge of both. Reps want a private run system which could theoretically work. Dems want a public run system which has worked in various models around the world.
The private-run system the Republicans want could not "theoretically" work. This would mean theory would indicate it could work, and theory says the exact opposite, precisely because of what paralleluniverse explained: healthcare is particularly unsuitable for free market dynamics. Both theory and empirical evidence show the Republicans' proposal would be an extremely bad way of reforming the healthcare system.
|
On November 03 2012 04:15 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 03:20 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 03 2012 01:41 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 01:16 KlinKz wrote:
No offence to America, but I seriously cannot wait till Romney gets elected and the US understands the extreme right polices he will make. Good luck with having no abortions (or not, flip flop idk) , the voucher system, and money going into military that the military doesn't need and hasn't ask for and appointing new supreme justices that will likely favour the far right. Coming from Canada and watching Fox News for only 10 mins and I got sick of it "who can take this news network seriously or O'Reilly fellow seriously?" is the questions I must ask.
When I hear america I see a land where everyone wants to go but if Romney comes into office then I will not understand why people would want to go to America any more. I wish their was a federal policy on television advertisements (i guess that could be restricting the first amendment) on fining those who create false advertisements or create an advertisement that has been manipulated so much that the truth is obscured. First of all, America isn't going to "go to shit" if Romney gets elected. Stop being dumb. He can't change Roe v. Wade if he wanted to. The voucher plan is not stupid and runs like many other programs in our federal system. The military money is a drop in the bucket. Fox news is a conservative propaganda machine. Everyone knows this. It's not some super duper secret weapon of the right. And Obama's ads are just as bad when it comes to lying. But I thought it isn't a voucher plan? No? And how exactly is voucherizing Medicare suppose to be good for people? It's just shifting the cost of healthcare from the government to people. And if you can't afford it beyond what the voucher covers (which doesn't keep up with inflation), then you're screwed. It's a well-known fact, proved by every other advanced country that government doing healthcare significantly reduces costs and with better results. And somehow doing the opposite, using a voucher scheme, to shift costs to private citizens is meant to make things better? The idea that privatizing healthcare will fix everything by the magic of the free market is a fantasy. Economic theory says that in order for a free market to be efficient, a number of assumptions must hold, for example transactions must be voluntary, market participants must have perfect information, all costs are internalized, etc. None of these assumptions hold for the healthcare market. For example, if you almost die in a serious car crash, you don't have a voluntary choice to go to hospital, you go or you die. There are information asymmetries, for example, as a patient, you don't have perfect information about what treatments you should get, or insurance companies know less about your health than you do, so adverse selection prevents them taking people with preexisting conditions, unless the government steps in. Costs are not internalized, if you're in that car crash and can't afford to pay the hospital, than the taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill. So, yes, vouchercare moves healthcare closer to the free market, which is a stupid thing to do, based not only on theory but also the evidence from the rest of the world. And Obama's ads are nowhere near as bad when it comes to lying. I love it when people drop the "it's a well known fact" when it clearly is debatable. And then it gets followed up by the "PREACH IT BROTHA!" cheerleader. No it's not debatable, healthcare is cheaper and more efficient when it's run by government, as shown by every other advanced country on Earth. Here are some graphs and a study, which I posted back here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=477#9533Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpgSource: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx correlation != causation
Is that the best objection to the graphs that you've got? Put it this way, if it's not causation, why is there such a strong correlation?
There's plenty of reasons why universal healthcare would cause a reduction in costs, for example, the government has greater bargaining power to drive down costs, administrative costs are reduced as people just bill the government instead of having everyone go through an insurance middleman, everyone gets covered so people are more likely to get preventive care, there's much less incentive for rent seeking from insurance companies and corporations, etc.
This isn't some utopian fantasy which we don't know much about. Universal healthcare is in every advanced country except the US.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
depends on what theory contains. if your theory is that in a free market system there will be well behaved companies working for maybe 20% cost overrun (profit) over a service that they have the power to charge much more. then yea it works in theory. it would also mean that your theory may not be very realistic.
however, when you are faced with existing industry that can charge ridiculous amounts for care without the patient running away to the competition, you get problems. the lack of incentive for preventive care is also another thing that is hard to account for in a privatized system as you'd be killing your own market if you devote the efficient amount of resources to preventive measures.
|
No one in the healthcare debate ever addresses chronic conditions. There are loads of people who will need to take medication for the rest of their lives, this isnt what insurance should be for, but due to the ridiculous costs you need insurance for these things which unfortunately is tied to jobs, which is a big part of the clusterfuck itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
