|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Indeed, with universal healthcare you can relieve many businesses of their burdens. There will be companies and government entities willing to offer additional healthcare on top of the socialized healthcare, but overall there will be a lot of hassle removed.
|
History has proven that capitalism does not work, at least not as well as highly regulated economies. More importantly, competition is a destructive and counter intuitive process. Tearing each other down instead of working to achieve common goals is an antiquated system. Cooperation and unity of intentions are what make for a strong nation, and that vision should be imposed upon the people if they do not currently see it's worth. The revolution of system shall initiate the revolution of thought.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
some forms of competition do lead to more efficient use of resources. most of the market operate well.
|
On November 03 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
some forms of competition do lead to more efficient use of resources. most of the market operate well.
Competition will never be as effective as cooperation with a single purpose of mind. Working together instead of apposing.
|
On November 03 2012 05:05 magnusfrater wrote:
History has proven that capitalism does not work, at least not as well as highly regulated economies. More importantly, competition is a destructive and counter intuitive process. Tearing each other down instead of working to achieve common goals is an antiquated system. Cooperation and unity of intentions are what make for a strong nation, and that vision should be imposed upon the people if they do not currently see it's worth. The revolution of system shall initiate the revolution of thought.
Sorry but you need to go the other way around. People will not conform to a system with which they do not agree (or see the use of).
And you're also apparently missing a crucial point which is that people are self-interested. While in a small family the common good for the family usually trumps the individual this isn't true and never will be on the large societal scales with which we are working today. Hence, enter capitalism, in which human nature is made to work towards the common good. That said I definently agree that regulated economies are the way to go as unregulated capitalism sucks.
On November 03 2012 05:07 magnusfrater wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
some forms of competition do lead to more efficient use of resources. most of the market operate well. Competition will never be as effective as cooperation with a single purpose of mind. Working together instead of apposing.
You have no sources for your claim simply because it's untrue. The way you present your argument is that noone is working with anyone else, which is of course not true. Inside each company everyone is working together, however in the greater capitalistic system these companies then compete with eachother which leads to improvement as bad ideas are weeded out. This is the very basics of capitalism.
If you were to replace this with a single purpose then I have to ask you what this purpose is? Who decides it, who organizes everything? Capitalism is self-regulating (even if outside regulation of a different kind is required for 'the greater good' in many areas). Unless you get people to agree with you on some kind of societal vision and have everyone working towards the goal because they want to then you either cannot make it happen or become morally corrupt as you force people in to slavery.
|
A vast majority of drugs are developed in the US. They say it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug in the US. That's because of our insanely rigorous trial program. When a drug comes out, it's patented for a period of 20 years. The drugs are expensive because the pharma company is paying down its research and marketing. Once that drug is out there, anyone outside of the US can manufacture and sell that drug. And since they're not restricted by US patent laws, they can sell it right away for very cheap. So the US develops the drugs that the rest of the world gets for next to nothing. Just something to think about before you throw out another chart and make facile conclusions about healthcare costs.
|
On November 03 2012 05:10 jdsowa wrote:
A vast majority of drugs are developed in the US. They say it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug in the US. That's because of our insanely rigorous trial program. When a drug comes out, it's patented for a period of 20 years. The drugs are expensive because the pharma company is paying down its research and marketing. Once that drug is out there, anyone outside of the US can manufacture and sell that drug. And since they're not restricted by US patent laws, they can sell it right away for very cheap. So the US develops the drugs that the rest of the world gets for next to nothing. Just something to think about before you throw out another chart and make facile conclusions about healthcare costs.
I'm not sure you understand international intellectual property law...at all...but yes, the US does subsidize drug development for the rest of the world due to its huge inability to bargain with drug companies and the labyrinthine complex of insurance requirements. Not sure that means we should keep them around, though...
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem with medical research is that industry research is always driven by profit and it is questionable what real improvements it will bring.
rare diseases get shafted, no industry will fund vaccination nearly to the same degree as treatment drugs. cancer research is hugely booming and that mostly affects people who are already pretty old. some of the health problems that these drugs address are way more effectively treated by preventive care or behavioral changes, such as not being a smoker or not being too fat. the usual stuff.
but yea the regulatory red tape on medical research could be lowered.
|
On November 03 2012 05:08 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:05 magnusfrater wrote:
History has proven that capitalism does not work, at least not as well as highly regulated economies. More importantly, competition is a destructive and counter intuitive process. Tearing each other down instead of working to achieve common goals is an antiquated system. Cooperation and unity of intentions are what make for a strong nation, and that vision should be imposed upon the people if they do not currently see it's worth. The revolution of system shall initiate the revolution of thought. Sorry but you need to go the other way around. People will not conform to a system with which they do not agree (or see the use of). And you're also apparently missing a crucial point which is that people are self-interested. While in a small family the common good for the family usually trumps the individual this isn't true and never will be on the large societal scales with which we are working today. Hence, enter capitalism, in which human nature is made to work towards the common good. That said I definently agree that regulated economies are the way to go as unregulated capitalism sucks.
The goal is to align public interest with self-interest, so that the two are synonymous rather than contradictory. Capitalism does not have the common good in mind, self-interest is currently opposed to public interest.
Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:07 magnusfrater wrote:On November 03 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
some forms of competition do lead to more efficient use of resources. most of the market operate well. Competition will never be as effective as cooperation with a single purpose of mind. Working together instead of apposing. You have no sources for your claim simply because it's untrue. The way you present your argument is that noone is working with anyone else, which is of course not true. Inside each company everyone is working together, however in the greater capitalistic system these companies then compete with eachother which leads to improvement as bad ideas are weeded out. This is the very basics of capitalism. If you were to replace this with a single purpose then I have to ask you what this purpose is? Who decides it, who organizes everything? Capitalism is self-regulating (even if outside regulation of a different kind is required for 'the greater good' in many areas). Unless you get people to agree with you on some kind of societal vision and have everyone working towards the goal because they want to then you either cannot make it happen or become morally corrupt as you force people in to slavery.
The single purpose is a society aligned in collective cooperation and purpose. It matters little what the purpose is, just that the people are united in action and thought. There is no such thing as self-regulating, regulation requires a state. What is morally corrupt is determined by the nation as well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
magnusfrater i sympathise with your desire for cooperation at all levels of social activity, but the furthest i can push that is to argue for it as "always a legitimate proposal" sort of thing. a right to revolution essentially. meaning, you can always, in any instance, raise the thought that we should be cooperative and it should be respected as an alternative. however, in most circumstances this thought won't be raised, and enforcing it as though it has to be raised is problematic for this particular culture. it's fine as a performative call, but as a descriptive theory of how society and economy works, it will find very difficult time.
the general idea that the world is divided into a command structure and a cooperative structure is pretty good though. anthropology supports it. but when we are talking about a cooperative structure, once the partiicpants cease wanting to cooperate you basically can't have nice things anymore.
|
On November 03 2012 04:43 KlinKz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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
Obamacare fully implemented will be Romneycare fully implemented (already have it in MA so there's a working example to build off of). It won't solve all the problems, and it won't bend the cost curve down.
|
On November 03 2012 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:43 KlinKz wrote:On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 Obamacare fully implemented will be Romneycare fully implemented (already have it in MA so there's a working example to build off of). It won't solve all the problems, and it won't bend the cost curve down.
Well, it'll do significantly more to curve the cost curve than MA healthcare reform did, mostly because of the Medicare/caid and reimbursement changes. MA is actually looking at the additional ACA changes going forward. Obviously it would've been a lot better with a single payer option, but Obama didn't feel he could risk the insurance companies backing out and torpedoing public sentiment like they did with outright lies about Clinton's plan (sadly he didn't count on half the country being mad about a plan their party supported 40 years ago and then 15 years ago).
|
On November 03 2012 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:43 KlinKz wrote:On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 Obamacare fully implemented will be Romneycare fully implemented (already have it in MA so there's a working example to build off of). It won't solve all the problems, and it won't bend the cost curve down.
There isn't much that will bend the cost curve down, not even universal healthcare. Healthcare costs are increasing everywhere as a result of an aging population. But universal healthcare does significantly slow the increase in costs compared to the US system, as the graph on the previous page shows.
|
On November 03 2012 05:17 magnusfrater wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:08 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 03 2012 05:05 magnusfrater wrote:
History has proven that capitalism does not work, at least not as well as highly regulated economies. More importantly, competition is a destructive and counter intuitive process. Tearing each other down instead of working to achieve common goals is an antiquated system. Cooperation and unity of intentions are what make for a strong nation, and that vision should be imposed upon the people if they do not currently see it's worth. The revolution of system shall initiate the revolution of thought. Sorry but you need to go the other way around. People will not conform to a system with which they do not agree (or see the use of). And you're also apparently missing a crucial point which is that people are self-interested. While in a small family the common good for the family usually trumps the individual this isn't true and never will be on the large societal scales with which we are working today. Hence, enter capitalism, in which human nature is made to work towards the common good. That said I definently agree that regulated economies are the way to go as unregulated capitalism sucks. The goal is to align public interest with self-interest, so that the two are synonymous rather than contradictory. Capitalism does not have the common good in mind, self-interest is currently opposed to public interest. Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:07 magnusfrater wrote:On November 03 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
some forms of competition do lead to more efficient use of resources. most of the market operate well. Competition will never be as effective as cooperation with a single purpose of mind. Working together instead of apposing. You have no sources for your claim simply because it's untrue. The way you present your argument is that noone is working with anyone else, which is of course not true. Inside each company everyone is working together, however in the greater capitalistic system these companies then compete with eachother which leads to improvement as bad ideas are weeded out. This is the very basics of capitalism. If you were to replace this with a single purpose then I have to ask you what this purpose is? Who decides it, who organizes everything? Capitalism is self-regulating (even if outside regulation of a different kind is required for 'the greater good' in many areas). Unless you get people to agree with you on some kind of societal vision and have everyone working towards the goal because they want to then you either cannot make it happen or become morally corrupt as you force people in to slavery. The single purpose is a society aligned in collective cooperation and purpose. It matters little what the purpose is, just that the people are united in action and thought. There is no such thing as self-regulating, regulation requires a state. What is morally corrupt is determined by the nation as well.
Look, you have a lot of philosophical reading to do, aswell as both Marx, Smith and other capitalist (and critiques of it) literature. I'll leave it at that because this thread is concerned about the US General Election and not educating you.
|
On November 03 2012 05:25 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 04:43 KlinKz wrote:On November 03 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 Obamacare fully implemented will be Romneycare fully implemented (already have it in MA so there's a working example to build off of). It won't solve all the problems, and it won't bend the cost curve down. There isn't much that will bend the cost curve down, not even universal healthcare. Healthcare costs are increasing everywhere as a result of an aging population. But universal healthcare does significantly slow the increase in costs compared to the US system, as the graph on the previous page shows.
Maybe. You'd think a well functioning system could bring US costs in line with other nations, though that may not be the case.
|
On November 03 2012 05:04 Souma wrote:
Indeed, with universal healthcare you can relieve many businesses of their burdens. There will be companies and government entities willing to offer additional healthcare on top of the socialized healthcare, but overall there will be a lot of hassle removed.
You've introduced government into the problem. I don't see that as "hassle removed;" rather, I see quite the opposite, lol.
|
On November 03 2012 05:17 magnusfrater wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 05:08 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 03 2012 05:05 magnusfrater wrote:
History has proven that capitalism does not work, at least not as well as highly regulated economies. More importantly, competition is a destructive and counter intuitive process. Tearing each other down instead of working to achieve common goals is an antiquated system. Cooperation and unity of intentions are what make for a strong nation, and that vision should be imposed upon the people if they do not currently see it's worth. The revolution of system shall initiate the revolution of thought. Sorry but you need to go the other way around. People will not conform to a system with which they do not agree (or see the use of). And you're also apparently missing a crucial point which is that people are self-interested. While in a small family the common good for the family usually trumps the individual this isn't true and never will be on the large societal scales with which we are working today. Hence, enter capitalism, in which human nature is made to work towards the common good. That said I definently agree that regulated economies are the way to go as unregulated capitalism sucks. The goal is to align public interest with self-interest, so that the two are synonymous rather than contradictory. Capitalism does not have the common good in mind, self-interest is currently opposed to public interest.
Capitalism largely does align self-interest with public interest. It's kinda the whole point.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 05:10 jdsowa wrote:
A vast majority of drugs are developed in the US. They say it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug in the US. That's because of our insanely rigorous trial program. When a drug comes out, it's patented for a period of 20 years. The drugs are expensive because the pharma company is paying down its research and marketing. Once that drug is out there, anyone outside of the US can manufacture and sell that drug. And since they're not restricted by US patent laws, they can sell it right away for very cheap. So the US develops the drugs that the rest of the world gets for next to nothing. Just something to think about before you throw out another chart and make facile conclusions about healthcare costs.
R&D costs are bloated due in part to artful accounting practices due to the fact that pharma companies get a double-incentive for such: one, they get tax breaks for R&D and two, they get justification for what they price their drugs at.
Just take a look at the profit margins of big pharma. If it took $1 billion to develop a new drug, and if you factor in the amount of drugs that never make it to the market, that would equate to a few-several billion per successful drug. That would result in a possibly unsustainable market.
Yet here we are... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/industries/21/index.html
By the way, a lot of research is also funded by tax-payer dollars as it happens in university labs - research which is then taken by drug companies.
Also, most of the rest of the world are subject to U.S. patent laws. The U.S. has stopped many countries from producing generics which could do a lot of good for their country which results in black-market dealings (take a look at Africa).
|
On November 03 2012 04:54 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 04:15 BluePanther wrote: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#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 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.
The lack of government management is not the only thing unique to our system.
Our legal system handles medical malpractice much differently, and is a big part of the waste in our system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
